The duty of the State to provide health care to its citizens and its own servants, the right to health as a fundamental right, and the need for a good health policy and health coverage for all.

The petitioner, a serving Head Constable belonging to the Uniformed Services of the State of Tamil Nadu and attached to the Katchampatty Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District, has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the order dated 012. 2005 passed by the second respondent in rejecting his request for availing assistance under the Tamil Nadu Government Employees Health Fund Scheme for having undergone an Angioplasty in an approved private Hospital.

2. The petitioner, having joined the service in the Vellore Armed Reserve on 19. 1980, got transferred to law and order in the year 1989. He was promoted as Grade – I Constable in the year 1995 and got further promoted as Head Constable in the year 2000. When he was working in the Police Station at Eraiyur, on 11. 2002, all of a sudden, he developed cardiac problem while he was on duty and he was rushed to the Government Hospital, Thirupattur, for first aid treatment and as per the advise of the Doctor in that Government Hospital, he was taken to the Apollo Hospitals, Chennai, for proper and further treatment for his heart ailment. He was admitted in the said Hospital in Chennai on 111. 2002 and after an initial treatment from outside the Hospital, he was once again admitted as an in-patient due to the seriousness of his disease. There was a block in his heart and after admission in the Intensive Care Corollary Unit, he was suggested to undergo corollary angiogram and the same was done on 111. 2002. In view of the age of the petitioner, which was already beyond 45, he was not advised for any open heart surgery or bypass surgery. It was a single vessel critical block and it was suggested to have angioplasty, which was also done on 111. 2002. Subsequently, after recovery, he was discharged from the hospital on 211. 2002.

3. During the process of medical treatment, he had incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,88,497/-for which proper receipts were given. The petitioner made a representation and the same was rejected by the second respondent by order dated 211. 2002 stating that there is no provision for reimbursement for the kind of treatment undergone by the petitioner. Thereafter, a further representation dated 28. 2004 was made by the petitioner. The petitioner also filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.No.32545 of 2005 and this Court, by order dated 010. 2005, directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. Pursuant to the same, the matter was referred to the opinion of the Dean, Government General Hospital. Accordingly, by a letter dated 211. 2005, the Dean, Government General Hospital, communicated to the second respondent the report of the Professor and Head of the Department, Cardiology, Government General Hospital, Chennai. According to the report, the treatment undergone by the petitioner did not require any emergency treatment and facilities are available in Government General Hospital, Chennai, and the treatment was a special one. But, however, the said treatment was not included in G.O.Ms.No.400 Finance (Salaries) Department dated 28. 2000. But it was stated that the charges paid by the petitioner was acceptable and reasonable. This report was, in turn, communicated by the first respondent to the petitioner with a covering letter dated 012. 2005, which is impugned in the writ petition.

4. I have heard the arguments of Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, Mr.V.R.Thangavelu, learned Government Advocate representing the respondents, and have perused the records.

5. If we do not protect the man who protects us all the time, then who will protect those protectors. This is a serious question which the State had to address itself. If this is the attitude of the State in protecting the lives of its own constabulary and that too, for a person having served for 25 years of its forces, then it is really a sad state of affairs. The Supreme Court as early as in its decision reported i