Important Point
Expression “wholly dependent” as appearing in the definition of ‘‘family’’ as given in Medical Rules could not be confined to mere financial dependence and would include both financial and physical dependence.

Headnote:M.P. Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958-Rules 3 to 10-Reimbursement of expenses incurred towards medical treatment-Definition of “family”-Expression “wholly dependent” to be given its due meaning with reference to the Rules in which it appeared-It could not be confined to mere financial dependence but would include both financial and physical dependence-Respondent, a retired Government servant getting a pension of Rs. 414 per month, aged 70 years, could not be said was not wholly dependent on his son-2nd respondent son was fully entitled to reimbursement for expenses incurred on treatment of his father. (Para 12)

Judgement Key Points

Please provide the legal document content within ... tags, along with your specific query or task (e.g., summarize key points, extract clauses, analyze implications). I'll analyze it accordingly using the specified citation format, such as (!) (!) .

Judgment

D.P. Wadhwa, J.-This appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh is directed against the judgment dated June 30, 1989 of the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) holding that father of a Government servant who himself has retired as a Government servant can be wholly dependent on his son and son thus entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on the treatment of his father under the relevant M.P. Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958 (for short ‘Medical Rules’). This, according to Tribunal, would be so even where a separate Rule is applicable for medical treatment to a retired Government servant.

2. There are two respondents before us, 1st respondent is the father and the 2nd respondent is his son. The 1st respondent retired from Government service of the State and at the relevant time was drawing pension of Rs. 176/- with Rs. 238/- as additional relief totalling Rs. 414/- per month. He was living with his son, the 2nd respondent, who was also a Government servant and was working as Senior Radiographer, M.Y. Hospital, Indore. Under the relevant Medical Rules, 1st respondent would be a member of family of his son, the 2nd respondent. The controversy centred around the question if in the present case father was wholly dependent on his son.

3. The father developed serious heart ailment and the treatment which he required was not available in the State of Madhya Pradesh. By his application dated June 19, 1987 the son sought permission from the Director of Medical Education, M.P., for treatment and investigation respecting his father. This permission was sought on the strength of the certificates dated June 4, 1987 issued by Dr. A.K. Bharani, a Consultant in Cardiology, M.Y. Hospital, Indore, certifying that the 1st respondent had been under his treatment for hypertension and coronary artery disease (old M.I.) and that it was, therefore, essential for the patient to get cardiological investigation. Dr. Bharani also certified that the 1st respondent might need coronary angiography with a view to decide about by-pass surgery and further that these facilities were not available in the State Government Hospital and that same would be available either at Bombay, New Delhi or Madras etc. It is not necessary to refer to the correspondence that ensured between the 2nd respondent and the concerned medical authorities of the State except to note that permission was granted by letter dated August 12, 1987 by the Director of Medical Education Madhya Pradesh for investigation/treatment of the 1st respondent at Bombay Hospital, Bombay.

4. After the 2nd respondent, the son, got the necessary permission, he took his father to Bombay, where he was treated and underwent by-pass heart surgery. The 2nd respondent submitted a bill for Rs. 32,156.40 for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him on the treatment of his father as per Medical Rules which amount did not include TA bills. An objection was raised that the 1st respondent being himself a Government pensioner permission could not have been granted to the 2nd respondent for getting his father treated at Bombay. Another objection raised was that though the 1st respondent may be a member of the family of the 2nd respondent, he was not wholly dependent on the 2nd respondent as he was getting pension from the State Government.

5. As the 2nd respondent failed in his attempt to get reimbursement under the Medical Rules, he approached the Tribunal seeking relief. He impleaded the State Government, Director of Medical Education (Health) and Joint Director-cum-Superintendent, M.Y. Hospital as respondents. His father was also made a party as a co-petitioner. The Tribunal after considering the facts of the case and relevant Medical Rules allowed the application and directed the respondents to reimburse the expenditure incurred by the 2nd respondent on treatment of his father, the 1st respondent at Bombay. Aggrieved by the said judgment,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1997 Supreme(SC) 1693

Important PointExpression “wholly dependent” as appearing in the definition of ‘‘family’’ as given in Medical Rules could not be confined to mere financial dependence and would include both financial and physical dependence.

Important Point
Expression “wholly dependent” as appearing in the definition of ‘‘family’’ as given in Medical Rules could not be confined to mere financial dependence and would include both financial and physical dependence.