KRISHNA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner underwent the liver transplant operation while holding the post of the Judicial Officer for which the petitioner was entitled to reimbursement of the medical expenses. However, the petitioner's brother became donor for the petitioner for the liver transplant operation for the petitioner. The petitioner was initially sanctioned Rs. 20,80,000/- for the treatment and petitioner, after successful liver transplant operation, submitted the bill which includes the expenditure incurred for the operation of petitioner's brother for the purpose of liver transplant from the body of petitioner's brother to petitioner's body. The State Government vide its communication dated 13.7.2012 rejected the claim of the medical expenses of petitioner's brother on the ground that petitioner's brother is not dependent in terms of the resolution 260(10) dated 17.7.2007 which allows the medical expenses to the employees as well as to their dependents only and petitioner's brother is not dependent upon petitioner. Therefore, this writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner seeking direction against the respondent- State for sanction of the expenditure of medical bill which has been incurred for petitioner's brother for liver transplant operation of the petitioner.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner while holding the post of Judicial Officer as Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, he suffered a severe disease in his chamber itself resulting into blood vomiting on 5.2.2009. The petitioner was taken to Bokaro General Hospital for his medical treatment. During the course of medical check-up and endoscopic test, it was detected that petitioner suffers from liver disease. On 6.2.2009, doctors of Bokaro General Hospital referred the case of the petitioner for his treatment to Kothari Medical Centre at Kolkata which was the nearest place of better treatment for the petitioner's liver problem. The petitioner was taken to said hospital forthwith. There, petitioner was found to have a chronic liver disease and, therefore, it was advised that petitioner would go for liver transplantation. The petitioner's brother namely Basistha Narayan Gautam was found to be a fit candidate for providing a part of the liver for transplantation in the body of the petitioner. The petitioner and his brother, both were admitted in hospital on 6.1.2011 and on 7.1.2011, surgery was performed-because of the reason of diagnosis of the de-compensated liver disease HCV related. The transplantation was successful and the petitioner's brother was discharged from hospital on 18.1.201 and the petitioner was discharged on 19.1.2011. Since it was a case of emergency, the matter was placed before the Medical Board for post-facto approval of the treatment outside the State as well as for recommendation of the expenditure incurred for the treatment by the petitioner for which decision was taken by the Medical Board on 30.4.2011. The petitioner submitted his representation to the Principal District Judge, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum on 7.4.2012 requesting for sanction of his total medical bill of Rs. 28,47,169/- out of which he has already been paid Rs. 20,80,000/- which was an advance payment for the treatment, obviously, because of the reason of urgency as well as of emergency.. Petitioner also submitted one bill of Rs. 2,72,737/- which is said to be medical bill for the period prior to the operation.

(3.) Be that as it may, we are not presently concerned with the total amount of the medical bill of the petitioner. The controversy in this writ petition is only confined to the issue whether the petitioner, who suffered a severe liver problem and was advised by the doctors to have the liver transplant operation to save his life by obtaining a part of the liver from a donor, was entitled to all expenses incurred for the process of liver transplant operation which includes the donor's operation and medical expenses. In view of the material available before us in the form of 'Discharge Summary' given for the petitioner and petitioner's brother by the hospital, which clearly indicate that petitioner suffered and was diagnosed for the disease decompensated liver disease HCV related. He was admitted in hospital on 6.1.2011 and his brother was found to be a fit person to donate a part of his liver for the purpose of successful liver transplant operation of petitioner. The liver was transplanted into the body of the petitioner on 7.1.2011 after taking it out from the body of the petitioner's brother on 7.1.2011. Without this donation of the part of the liver by the petitioner's brother, the petitioner could not have got the treatment which was essential for saving his life. Therefore, the complete process of transplantation of the liver in the body of the petitioner includes the process of operation upon the body of the petitioner's brother and both are not only inseparably related to each other but the operation of petitioner's brother was the foundational treatment for the treatment of the petitioner. Therefore, whether the petitioner's brother was dependent upon the petitioner or not is absolutely irrelevant. The liver transplant operation consists of two operations, one upon donor and another upon the body of the patient. Without operation upon the body of the donor, the petitioner himself could not have got the treatment and in the present case, to save his life in such type of matter. Not only a family member of the patient-employee is entitled to the reimbursement of the medical expenses in such operation but anybody who may not have any relation to the patient-employee, would also be entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses. Therefore, the State Government wrongly relied upon the Circular 260(10) dated 17.7.2007.