Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT AIZAWL BENCH
NELSON SAILO, J.
K. Thangliankhuma S/o Kawlkhuma – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Mizoram – Respondent
WP (C) No. 72 of 2021
Decided On : 02-03-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Civil Service (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 – Power of High court to issue writs - Petitioner has raised his grievance for not being reimbursed with the expenses for the medical treatment he had undertaken in a hospital which according to the respondents was not a recognized hospital at the relevant time of his admission to the hospital -Wherein Government servant concerned had to be admitted to the hospital in an emergency condition held that the medical expenses incurred would have to be reimbursed as per the entitlement in terms of the relevant Rules. (Para 12)
Findings of the Court :
It may be seen that the petitioner was taken to Trinity Hospital on account of the medical emergency and in such condition, one can hardly expect the petitioner to first look into the list of approved hospitals and then proceed to get medical assistance - The authorities relied upon as discussed above is found applicable to the case of the petitioner - In the result, Court find merit in the writ petition and the impugned Communications dated 02.03.2021 and 12.04.2021 are hereby set aside - Petitioner shall submit his application for medical reimbursement through the proper channel within a period of 10(ten) days from today and the respondents shall process the matter without delay and the amount to be reimbursed as entitled to the petitioner should be made available to him by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application for medical reimbursement by the respondent No. 6.
Result : Writ petition disposed of
JUDGMENT :
NELSON SAILO, J.
1. Heard Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has raised his grievance for not being reimbursed with the expenses for the medical treatment he had undertaken in a hospital which according to the respondents was not a recognized hospital at the relevant time of his admission to the hospital.
3. Brief facts of the case essential for disposal of the writ petition is that the petitioner is working as Sub-Divisional Officer (TC), National Highways Division-III under the Public Works Department, Government of Mizoram. On 20.11.2020, he was rushed to Trinity Hospital, Silaimual, Melthumkawn, Mizoram on medical emergency. Upon reaching the hospital, he was admitted and after necessary medical investigation was conducted, he was found to be suffering from acute kidney failure with chronic diabetic kidney disease with hypertension and celebellar ataxia. After receiving medical treatment in the said hospital, the petitioner was finally discharged on 23.12.2020. The petitioner then submitted his bills to the authority concerned for medical reimbursement which amounted to Rs. 4,74,566/- on 12.1.2021. The same was forwarded to the Chief Executive Officer, Mizoram State Health Care Society, Government of Mizoram (respondent No. 6). However, the same was rejected on the ground that the hospital concerned was not empanelled with the State Government at the time of admission of the petitioner to the hospital. The medical reimbursement bill was then returned to the petitioner on 02.03.2021 by the respondent No. 6 through the respondent No. 7.
4. Against the rejection, the petitioner submitted his representation to the respondent No. 6 on 04.03.2021 stating inter-alia that he was admitted to the said hospital due to the emergency and that he had no choice at the relevant time but to get immediate treatment to save his life. The respondent No. 7, therefore, resubmitted the medical reimbursement bill of the petitioner to the respondent No. 6, but the same came to be rejected again through Communication dated 12.04.2021 which was addressed to the respondent No. 7 with a copy to the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned counsel submits that the petitioner on 20.11.2020 due to medical emergency had to be rushed to Trinity Hospital and there was no time for the petitioner and for those who had assisted him to first find out which hospital was recognized by the State Government, so as to take him there for his treatment. As it was an emergency, the petitioner was rushed to the Trinity Hospital and where he was accordingly, admitted immediately to receive his treatment. Referring to Notification dated 23.12.2020 (Annexure-VIII of the writ petition), the learned counsel submits that Trinity Hospital came to be recognized by the State Government w.e.f. 27.11.2020 while the petitioner was admitted to that hospital on 20.11.2020. It is not the case of the respondents that the hospital concerned till date is not a recognized hospital but in fact, it is duly recognized w.e.f. 27.11.2020. Therefore, merely because the petitioner got admitted on 20.11.2020, the same cannot be a ground to reject his application for medical reimbursement.
6. The learned counsel further submits that in appropriate cases, the State Government in the Department of Health and Family Welfare and also in the Police Department has been granting Expost Facto permission for getting medical treatment in hospitals outside the State. In this connection, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the permission given by the authorities concerned, which are annexed as Annexure IX and X in the writ petition. He submits that in the present case as well, the petitioner h
Point of Law : Wherein Government servant concerned had to be admitted to hospital in an emergency condition held that medical expenses incurred would have to be reimbursed as per entitlement in term....
Emergency medical treatment cannot be denied reimbursement solely due to the hospital's non-inclusion in the approved list, as it violates fundamental health rights.
This does not ipso facto mean that the choice to go to the ‘Appolo Hospital’ was his alone and Court certain that this would have been guided by the references and advice offered by the hospitals in ....
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
