Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Smti Sangita Das, W/o. Sri Monoj Kr. Das - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam, Rep. by The Commissioner and Secy. to the Govt. of Assam, Health and F.W. Deptt. & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 3596 of 2015
Decided On : 01-04-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 and 14 - Assam Medical Attendance Rules, 2008 - Rule 6 (c) and 19(H) - Employment - Engineer - Brain Stroke - Preliminary Treatment - It is case of petitioner that her husband was appointed as a Roller Handyman in establishment of Executive Engineer, PWD (NH) Construction Division - While in service, husband of petitioner had faced a severe brain stroke during course of his employment and he was immediately admitted wherein he was provided preliminary treatment - Office of Superintendent, Guwahati Medical College Hospital vide its letter had intimated petitioner that Referral Medical Board, GMCH had refused Ex-Post-Facto approval of treatment of petitioner's husband since Rahman Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., Guwahati is not a referral hospital of the Government of Assam.
Finding of the Court :
A Government servant or a pensioner needs to be treated in a hospital, which is nearest hospital available but which is not a referral hospital - It has further been observed that Government has power to grant medical reimbursement even in cases where hospitalization and treatment were done in hospitals which are not a referral hospital - Thus, Government has power to grant medical reimbursement even in a case where hospitalization and treatment was done in a hospital which is not a referral hospital - Power has to be exercised in a fair and reasonable manner consistent with mandate of Article 14 of Constitution of India and not in a manner which results in discrimination - In instant case, Government failed to exercise power in a fair and reasonable manner resulting in gross discrimination to petitioner - Taking into consideration judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, respondents are now directed to verify claim of petitioner, i.e., medical bills amounting to Rs,1,82,322/- at earliest, and thereafter, if petitioner is entitled to said amount, to pay said amount of Rs.1,82,322/- to petitioner.
Result : Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. S. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to grant Ex-Post-Facto approval of the treatment of the petitioner’s husband and to make immediate payment of the medical reimbursement bills in respect of the petitioner’s husband.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband was appointed as a Roller Handyman in the establishment of Executive Engineer, PWD (NH) Construction Division, Abhayapuri. While in service, the husband of the petitioner had faced a severe brain stroke on 05.01.2012 during the course of his employment and he was immediately admitted at the Abhayapuri CHC (FRU) on 05.01.2012 wherein he was provided preliminary treatment. But as the health condition of the petitioner’s husband deteriorated, he was immediately rushed to Guwahati wherein he was admitted in the ICU of Rahman Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., Sixmile, Guwahati on 06.01.2012 for emergency treatment where he had undergone treatment till 20.01.2012.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that after undergoing treatment with effect from 06.01.2012 to 20.01.2012 at the said Rahman Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., the life of her husband was saved and it was due to the lack of money, the husband of the petitioner was released from the said Rahman Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. on 20.01.2012. In that connection, the petitioner had incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,82,322/- towards medical expenses for the treatment of her husband at Rahman Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. It is further stated that after the petitioner’s husband was released from Rahman Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., he had to continue treatment as one side paralysis had taken place to him. The petitioner, thereafter, on behalf of the husband, submitted the medical bills and documents in original before the Executive Engineer, PWD (NH) Construction Division, Abhayapuri for grant of Ex-Post-Facto approval as well as reimbursement of the medical bills.
5. The Executive Engineer, PWD (NH) Construction Division, Abhayapuri, respondent No. 4 by the letter No. 1123 dated 25.03.2013 forwarded the same to the Chief Engineer, PWD (NH), Assam for making payment of the medical bills in respect of the petitioner’s husband. Thereafter, the Chief Engineer, PWD (NH), Assam vide his letter dated 26.07.2013 requested the Executive Engineer, PWD (NH) Construction Division, Abhayapuri, respondent No. 4 for furnishing (i) Referred Medical Certificate, (ii) Ex-Post-Facto approval from the Director of Health Services and (iii) Essential Certificates.
6. When the said aspect of the matter was brought to the notice of the petitioner, she approached the respondent No. 2, the Director of Health Services, Assam for sanctioning Ex-Post-Facto approval for treatment of the petitioner’s husband. She was intimated by the said authority that the Ex-Post-Facto approval of her husband will be placed before the Referral Medical Board, GMCH for the needful in that regard.
7. The Office of the Superintendent, Guwahati Medical College Hospital vide its letter dated 29.08.2013 had intimated the petitioner that the Referral Medical Board, GMCH had refused the Ex-Post-Facto approval of treatment of the petitioner’s husband since the Rahman Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., Guwahati is not a referral hospital of the Government of Assam.
8. It is under such circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the matter is no longer res integra in inasmuch as this Court in various judgments including the judgment in the case of Uttam Das Vs. State of Assam and Others, reported in 2015 (2) GLT 197 held that in case of acute emergency, necessitating immediate hospitalization and treatment of the patient, the Medical Referral Board may not have occasion to examine the claim of
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
