Back
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
MOHIT S. SHAH & M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.
Rajendra B. Kasare
Versus
Union of India & Another
Writ Petition No. 11434 of 2012
Decided on: 25-03-2014
Constitution of India - Articles 21, 39(e), 41, 43 and 48-A Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1994, Appendices 9 and 11 Claim of medical reimbursement. - Since decease of petitioner, an Assistant Garrison Engineer, Naval Work is covered by Appendix 11 of Rules, 1994 hence respondents directed to consider case of petitioner for medical reimbursement towards cost of medicines. The observations made by the Supreme Court in Consumer Education and Research Centre and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1995 SC 922. In the above case on consideration of Article 21 read with Articles 39(e), 41, 43 and 48-A of the Constitution the Apex Court held that the workman has a right to health. The Court held that continued medical treatment, while in service and after retirement is a moral, legal and constitutional concomitant duty of the employer and the State. The Apex Court has accordingly held that right to health, medical aid to protect the health and vigour of a worker while in service or post retirement is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Court hope and trust that respondents will keep this constitutional mandate in mind while considering the claims of the employees for reimbursement of the medical expenses, particularly when employees are merely claiming reimbursement for costs of medicines purchased by them as per prescription of the doctor.
Respondents are directed to consider the petitioner’s claims for reimbursement of the expenses for purchase of medicines, including the bills which are still pending with the respondents and which may be submitted hereafter on the basis of the observations contained hereinabove. The petitioner’s claim as per the pending bills for reimbursement of costs of medicines shall be considered within four weeks from today and in future also whenever the petitioner submits his bill for reimbursement of medicines expenses, such bills shall be cleared within four weeks from the date of their submission.
(Chief Justice)
1. Learned counsel for respondents prayed for adjournment on the ground that learned Addl. Solicitor General has been instructed to appear in this matter. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of defence adopted by respondents, we do not consider it necessary that learned Addl. Solicitor General shall be troubled for a small matter like this.
Rule. Returnable forthwith.
2. This is an unfortunate case where the petitioner, working under Assistant Garrison Engineer, Naval Work, Uran, District: Raigad as a Refrigerator Mechanic, suffered a paralytic stroke in the year 2006. The aforesaid stroke rendered him permanently disabled by 50% and to add to his woes the respondents are failing to reimburse his medical bills for small amounts between Rs.2000/and Rs.5000/-. Thus, leading him to knock the doors of this Court for relief.
3. The petitioner was employed in the office of respondent No.6 on 13 December 1982. On 11 July 2006, when the petitioner was leaving for duty, he suffered from a paralytic stroke. In view of his serious condition the local Authorized Medical Attendant (AMA) viz. Dr. B.V. Devanikar for the Central Government Employees referred the petitioner to a Neurosurgeon at the Bombay Hospital in Ambulance. Accordingly from 11 July 2006 to 10 August 2006 the petitioner was under the medical care of Dr. Suneel Shah, MCH (Neurosurgeon) attached to the Bombay Hospital which is an authorized hospital. The petitioner has been under care and medical treatment of the said Dr. Suneel Shah from 11 July 2006 onwards. The Petitioner submitted bills for reimbursement for costs of medicines, which were prescribed by Dr. Suneel Shah and which the petitioner has been taking for the relevant period. Though some of the bills have been cleared by respondents and the petitioner has been paid, including reimbursement for angioplasty dated 12 July 2012, in the amount of Rs.1,54,590, respondents have not cleared all the bills for reimbursement of the costs of medicines.
4. It is contended in the affidavit-in-reply that an Authorized Medical Attendant (AMA) is authorized to give OPD treatment for not more than 10 days as per Appendix of Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules 1944, and accordingly AMA is supposed to refer the patient to recognized Government Hospital for further medical treatment and thereafter the petitioner is required to take treatment/medicines for his illness from the Government recognized hospital and submit the bills duly signed by the Government hospital only. The aforesaid procedure, it is alleged, is not being followed by the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner has submitted the certificate dated 31 March 2010 issued by Dr. Suneel Shah, Neurosurgeon, Bombay Hospital advising the petitioner to continue medical treatment for one year from 31 March 2010 and therefore respondents are justified in calling for certificate from Bombay Hospital for the period beyond 31 March 2011.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the certificate dated 10 December 2012 of the Bombay Hospital prescribing various medicines annexed to his affidavit in rejoinder. The petitioner has also relied upon the certificate dated 4 June 2010 of the Associate Professor in Neurology of Sir J.J. Group of Hospitals inter alia pointing out that if the prescribed medicines for controlling High Blood Pressure, diabetes and lipids are not taken regularly, it can lead to brain infarct, Ischenic heart disease and brain stroke.
6. As against the above, the counsel for the respondents submits that in view of Appendix IX & XI of the Central Service (Medical Attendance) Rules 1994 no fault can be found with the action of the respondents.
7. We have considered the rival submissions. In view of the stand taken by respondents, it is necessary to refer to following Rules which are contained in the Central Service (Medical Attendance) Rules, viz. Appendix-IX & XI thereof. The reli
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
