LALIT KUMAR LALA Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) BY the impugned order dated 27.8.2010(Annexure -3) issued by the Technical Secretary to Executive Director(MS) / Deputy C.M.O.(HQ) the claim for medical reimbursement for treatment of wife of the petitioner has been refused on the ground that petitioner has not obtained any prior approval from the company and such type of treatment expenditure is not admissible as per the C.I.L Medical Attendance Rule. Petitioner's case is that his wife Smt. Nutan Lala while at Ranchi during the course of her stay with her son who was studying in Ranchi met with an accident while riding on motorcycle and got head injury on 13.4.2010. She was immediately rushed to Nagarmal Modi Seva Sadan, Ranchi where she remained for about two days and thereafter, she was shifted to Appollo Hospital,Ranchi where she was admitted in Intensive Care Unit. After remaining in hospital for certain time for more than a month she was released after being cured. The treatment incurred expenditure of Rs. 1,86, 110/ -. The petitioner, thereafter, made a claim for reimbursement before his controlling officer which was duly forwarded by the letter dated 7.9.2010 to the Director Personnel, BCCL enclosing relevant vouchers and prescriptions. However, the respondents have denied the medical reimbursement simply on the ground that petitioner has failed to obtain prior approval of the company and such treatment expenditure was not admissible under the Medical Attendance Rule of CIL.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submitted that the Medical Attendance Rule stipulates certain conditions which are required to be complied before such case of reimbursement is allowed upon the expenditure where the employee or his dependent has been treated in private hospital, which is pre -requisite. There are other formalities required to be observed such as permission to carry on continuous treatment beyond 30 days by the competent Authority i.e. the Company's Doctor, which has not been done in the instant case. The respondents, however have not been able to offer satisfactory answer as to why in the cases of accident where immediate treatment is necessary in order to save the life of the injured, the matter could not have been considered as post facto sanction in the nature of approval.