SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(AP) 914

High Court of Andhra Pradesh
NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.
V. Harinatha Reddy
Versus
The Assistant Director (Admn) Directorate General & Others
Writ Petition No.12438 of 2000
Decided on: 27-09-2012

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Ms. A. Chaya Devi & Ms. P. Parimala, Advocates.
For the Respondent: S.S. Varma, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW - Medical reimbursement - Medical emergencies/exigencies --- Rules never meant to discredit a genuine and legitimate claim by assigning technicalities for purpose of rejecting it - Respondents directed to forthwith deal with claim of writ petitioner and consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon for reimbursing hospital expenditure incurred by petitioner in accordance with medical attendant rules.

ORDER

This writ petition is instituted by a constable of Central Reserved Police Force, seeking for declaring the action of the respondents in not sanctioning medical reimbursement amount of Rs.1,75,863/- incurred by him while securing treatment at a private hospital for bullet injury sustained by him as bad in law. The petitioner joined the service of the Central Reserved Police Force, henceforth referred to as ‘force’ in the year 1895, as a Constable. While he was working at Group Centre, Ranga Reddy, he was permitted to live outside the campus due to non-availability of family accommodation at the group centre, at the relevant point of time. While he was proceeding for lunch on 03.09.1997, from his office to his residence, he sustained a bullet injury on his back from EME Lakeline Firing Range. The bullet exited through his abdomen causing him a grave wound. He was administered first aid at the Group Centre Hospital, Ranga Reddy. Then the Medical Officer referred him to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, for receiving further treatment as the injury was a grave one. The petitioner was thus shifted from the hospital at the Group Centre of the force to Gandhi Hospital where he received treatment from 03.09.1997 to 15.09.1997. Unfortunately, inspite of undergoing a surgery and receiving treatment at the Gandhi Hospital, the condition of the petitioner has deteriorated. Discharge was noticed from the exit wound and on the fourth operative day, the petitioner developed ‘fecal fistula’ with Haematemesis and Melena. In view of the deterioration of his health condition, the family members of the petitioner requested for arranging treatment at Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, a leading private hospital of repute. Accordingly, the petitioner has been shifted from the Gandhi Hospital on 15.09.1997 and was admitted to the Apollo Hospital. He remained as an in-patient in the said hospital till 06.10.1997 and was ultimately discharged after stabilizing his condition. During the course of his three weeks of stay at Apollo Hospital, the petitioner, in all, spent a sum of Rs.1,75,863/- towards medication and other related expenses such as hospitalization and nursing charges. Further, the Chief Medical Officer of the Group Centre of the force Dr. Raju was overseeing all through the condition of the petitioner. Further when the family members of the petitioner solicited a shift to Apollo Hospital, Dr Raju, the Chief Medical Officer of the Force Hospital has himself overseen that the petitioner is shifted in an ambulance of the Force to the Apollo Hospital carefully as his condition at Gandhi Hospital has certainly worsened.

2. The Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, Ranga Reddy at Hakimpet of the force has ordered for a Court of Enquiry into the incident of bullet injury caused to the petitioner. The Court of Enquiry has found that, though the EME Lakeline firing range is nearly 2 kms away from the campus of the group centre, but nonetheless, because of improper standards maintained relating to the height of the protective wall to be maintained by the EME centre, stray instances of bullet injuries to the passers by are noticed. The Court of Enquiry has found that the petitioner has sustained the bullet injury right in front of the campus while he was on bonafide duty. Then, the Additional DIG, Group Centre passed an order on 20.10.1997 agreeing with the opinion of the Court of Enquiry that, when the petitioner has sustained the bullet injury in front of the campus of the force, Group Centre, he was on bonafide Government duty at 13.20 hrs on 03.09.1997 and hence the injury is attributable to the risk of Government Service. The Additional DIG has also passed an order that the petitioner is entitled for all service benefits as per rules, in the event of the petitioner becoming incapacitated for further service at a later stage, as a consequence of the bullet injury sustained by him on 03.09.1997. The Additional DIG has also notic















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top