Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 4073
High Court of Judicature at Madras
ELIPE DHARMA RAO & M. VENUGOPAL
C. Ganesh
Versus
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench represented by its Registrar, City Civil Court Buildings & Others
W.P.No.11583 of 2011
Decided on : 27-09-2011
For the Petitioner:V. Vijay Shankar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R2 to R6 - E. Arasu, Advocate, R1 – Tribunal.
Headnote:
The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the Petitioner's application for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred at a private hospital, finding that the Petitioner had not produced any new grounds other than what had already been decided and that the reimbursement had been settled as per admissible rates of the Government of India. The Petitioner challenged this order before the High Court.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, an employee of the Indian Navy, met with a road accident and sustained multiple injuries. He was initially admitted to a Government Hospital but was later shifted to a private hospital due to the Doctors' strike at the Government Hospital. The Petitioner submitted a medical reimbursement claim for Rs. 1,42,494/-, which was initially rejected. However, upon appeal, the Petitioner was granted a sum of Rs. 80,840/- as reimbursement. The Petitioner filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking reimbursement of the remaining amount, which was dismissed. The Petitioner then filed a Writ Petition before the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the order passed by the 3rd Respondent. The Court held that the Petitioner was entitled to reimbursement of the balance amount after ascertaining the same without interest (other than a sum of Rs.80,840/-already paid) (after looking into the original claim of the Petitioner) within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Issues: 1. Whether the Petitioner was entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses incurred at a private hospital. 2. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in dismissing the Petitioner's application for reimbursement.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Petitioner was entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses incurred at a private hospital, as he was forced to seek treatment at a private hospital due to the Doctors' strike at the Government Hospital. 2. The Court held that the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in dismissing the Petitioner's application for reimbursement, as the Petitioner had not produced any new grounds other than what had already been decided and that the reimbursement had been settled as per admissible rates of the Government of India.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the order passed by the 3rd Respondent. The Court directed the Respondents to reimburse the balance amount after ascertaining the same without interest (other than a sum of Rs.80,840/-already paid) (after looking into the original claim of the Petitioner) within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
1. The Petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the Proceedings of the 1st Respondent/Tribunal in O.A.No.636 of 2007, dated 29.01.2009 and the order passed by the 3rd Respondent in his Proceedings No.CE/9329/28, dated 08.08.2006 and to quash the same. Resultantly, the Petitioner has sought for issuance of directions to the Respondents to reimburse a sum of Rs.76,331.45, being the disallowed portion, together with interest at 18% thereon.
2. The 1st Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal, while passing the order on 29.01.2009 in O.A.No.636 of 2007, has among other things observed that 'the Applicant has filed an Appeal dated 11.03.2006 and the Respondents have passed an order No.CE/9329/28, dated 08.08.2006 and that the said order in Appeal is a speaking one etc. Further, the Respondents have already considered the request of the Applicant and settled the Bills as per the admissible rates of Government of India, paying a total sum of Rs.80,840/- and that the Applicant has not produced any new grounds other than what have already been decided and consequently, dismissed the Original Application.
3. Being dissatisfied with the order of dismissal dated 29.01.2009 in O.A.No.636 of 2007 passed by the 1st Respondent/Tribunal, the Writ Petitioner/Applicant has projected this Writ Petition before this Court.
4. BACKGROUND FACTS:
(a) The Writ Petitioner in O.A.No.636 of 2007 has averred that while working under the 3rd Respondent/Commanding Officer, INS Rajali, Arakkonam, he met with a road accident on 02.03.2000 culminating in breaking of his right side ribs, collar bone and right leg. Because of the serious injuries suffered by him, he could not be treated at the local General Hospital, Arakonam and he has been referred to the General Hospital, Chennai, on 03.03.2000 by the Local Doctors. Because of the Doctors strike at the Government Hospital and also because of his deteriorating condition, he has been shifted to a small private hospital in Tambaram on 04.03.2000. In the said private hospital, there is no availability of proper treatment. Hence, he has been shifted to Balaji Hospital Private Limited, Guindy, on 04.03.2000 and he has been kept in the intensive care for about 16 days.
(b) The Petitioner goes on to add that after treatment, he has been discharged and on receiving duties, he submitted a medical reimbursement claim for Rs.1,42,494/- through his representation, dated 28.06.2000 and produced all the receipts, bills and other connected documents. Initially, his request has been rejected based on wrong reason on his Appeal to the 4th Respondent/Area Accounts Officer, CDA (Navy), Chennai, he has been granted the entire medical reimbursement as per communication dated 22.06.2001. Later, his claim has been disallowed and he has been granted only a sum of Rs.37,925/-.
(c) Earlier, the Petitioner filed O.A.891 of 2001, claiming full medical reimbursement, as per his claim dated 28.06.2000. However, the Tribunal observed that the sanction of only Rs.37,925/- is incorrect and directed the Department to re-examine the entire issues and allow the reimbursement on a realistic basis. He filed Contempt Application No.19 of 2003 before the 1st Respondent/Tribunal for not implementing the direction issued in O.A.No.891 of 2001, dated 15.03.2002. During the course of hearing of the Contempt Application on behalf of the Respondents, it has been informed that the Petitioner is entitled to an enhanced medical reimbursement and that he would be paid around Rs.30,000/- over and above the amount already paid to him. The said Contempt Application has been dismissed by an order dated 22.04.2003. However, he has been granted the liberty to challenge the action of the Respondents, if he has any grievance regarding the quantum of payment.
(d) The Petitioner has been paid a sum of Rs.32,915/-. The total amount paid to him thus comes to Rs.80,840/- a
