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

2006 Supreme(Mad) 925

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
C.Nagamuthu - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu rep.by Secretary to Government & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.848 of 2006
Decided On : 04 April 2006

Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:Mr. V. Selvaraj, Advocate. For the Respondents:Mrs. D. Malarvizhi, Government Advocate.

Health Fund Scheme is a beneficial scheme.

Headnote:Service Law - Medical reimbursement - Discrimination-Health Fund Scheme- Heart surgery of son of employee - Treatment not taken in the approved list of hospitals - In a similar case was sanctioned whereas denied for petitioner for treatment not taken in the approved list of hospitals - It amounts to discrimination - Cancellation of sanction order denying benefit cannot be justified - Directions issued.

       

Judgment :-

(This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.60,039/- as reimbursement for medical expenses of the petitioner's son, who underwent heart surgery in the Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences & Technology, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala State.)

In this writ petition, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.60,039/- as reimbursement towards the medical expenses of the petitioner's son, who underwent heart surgery in the Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences & Technology, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala State.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition as stated in the affidavit in support of the writ petition are as follows.

(a) Petitioner joined as a Head Messenger in the Public Works Department on 3.7.1971 and retired from the service on 28.2.2005 as Works Inspector. The petitioner is a native of Muthalakurichi in Kanyakumari District. In the year 1998, while he was working as Works Inspector under the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Building Construction and Maintenance Division, Nagercoil, viz., the 5th respondent herein petitioner's son Saravanan suddenly fell sick and he had to undergo an urgent heart surgery during April, 1998. Petitioner's son was aged 11 years at that time and he underwent heart surgery on 2.4.1998 at Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Science & Technology, Thiruvananthapuram, which is about 60 Kms away from the petitioner's place of residence.

(b) The 5th respondent by his proceedings dated 22.10.1998 passed an order to reimburse a sum of Rs.48,749/- to the petitioner. The said order was cancelled subsequently by the 5th respondent by proceeding dated 17.12.1998 due to the objections raised by the audit department. It is further stated that the petitioner was required to submit a petition before the Government for medical reimbursement since the hospital in which petitioner's son underwent operation is situated in Kerala State. Accordingly petitioner submitted a petition on 24.2.1998 before the third respondent along with the case summery, discharge record relating to the treatment, copy of G.O.Ms.No.739 Finance Department dated 21.9.1995, etc.

(c) Petitioner further states that by G.O.(D)Ms.40 Agriculture Department, dated 23.3.1999 the Government sanctioned a sum of Rs.49,033/- to one T. Narayani, a Junior Assistant working in the Agricultural Department, who underwent heart surgery in the very same hospital at Thiruvananthapuram, where petitioner's son underwent surgery. Petitioner subsequently produced the said Government order before the first respondent. According to the petitioner, respondents 3 to 5 recommended to the first respondent to consider petitioner's request for medical reimbursement. The second respondent by letter dated 7.2.2003 addressed to the third respondent stated that the medical reimbursement expenses cannot be granted since the petitioner's son underwent heart surgery in a hospital outside the State. The Government has not passed any order till date sanctioning the medical reimbursement in favour of the petitioner. Hence the writ petition is filed with the above said prayer.

3. The 5th respondent filed a counter affidavit in which it is stated that the hospital in which surgery was performed does not find a place in the approved list of hospitals and therefore the request for sanction of the medical reimbursement cannot be entertained.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the scheme for medical reimbursement was introduced to help the Government Servants and their near relatives to meet 75% of the actual amount spent or Rs.1,00,000/- whichever is less, towards medical expenses, provided the Government servant paid contribution to the Government Employees Health Fund Scheme. The petitioner having contributed to the scheme, is entitled to get reimbursem







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