ORDER

Per: Hon’ble Dr. A. K. Dubey, Member (A)

1. Aggrieved by the partial reimbursement of the medical bill of the deceased pensioner as communicated by the respondents vide their intimation dated 25.03.2019 (Annexure A/1), the applicant who is the widow of the deceased pensioner, has preferred this OA.

2. The deceased husband of the applicant was a pensioner who retired from the service of the respondents on 31.10.2002. On 18.03.2016, he suffered heart attack and on the advice of the attending doctor at Himmatnagar, he had to be evacuated to the Sanjivani Hospital, Ahmedabad the same night where angiography procedure was performed on him, incurring a total expenditure of Rs. 1,11,963/-. However, the deceased pensioner (Applicant’s husband) could not keep well even after this procedure and suffered chest pain on 08.04.2016 whereupon he was taken to the Civil Hospital, Himatnagar. After the diagnosis there, he was referred to U N Mehta Heart Hospital, Ahmedabad to undergo bypass surgery. But, the queue for such surgical process was long and he was not in position to wait that much.

2.1 On 28.04.2016, the condition of the deceased pensioner became critical and he had to be admitted to the Sanjivani Hospital for immediate bypass surgery which was performed on 02.05.2016. Thereafter, he was under observation till 12.12.2016 incurring a total expenditure of Rs. 10,61,283/-. The pensioner expired on

12.12.2016 leaving behind his widow and family.

2.2 Consequent upon demise of the original applicant on 31.01.202 (Annexure I in MA No. 179/2022) the MA No. 179/2022 was allowed and legal heirs were permitted to join.

2.3 When the applicant requested for reimbursement of medical bill amounting in total to Rs. 11,73,246/-, the same was declined by the respondents as evident from the communication apropos of her request dated 27.01.2016 (Annexure A/4) on the ground that the pensioner was entitled for fixed medical allowance and was not entitled to claim the medical reimbursement. This communication was based on the inter office communication between the Superintendent of Post Offices, Surendranagar and Superintendent of Post Offices, Sabarkata dated 21.04.2017 (Annexure A/4 colly.). Aggrieved by this rejection, the applicant approached this Tribunal by way of OA No. 407/2017 whereupon this Tribunal ordered to consider the request for reimbursement of medical bills submitted by the applicant and reimburse the admissible amount as per the Government approved rates within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. This order was passed by this Tribunal on 19.09.2017. Available on record is the fact that the respondents challenged this order of the Tribunal before Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat vide SCA No. 20047/2017 whereupon the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat vide its order dated 19.02.2018 was pleased to dismiss the challenge thereby upholding the order of this Tribunal.

2.4 After the order of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, the respondent issued communication dated 25.03.2019 (Annexure A/1) impugned here, by which, out of the claim, Rs. 405082/- only was reimbursed towards the medical claim for the period specified therein. This order has been impugned here on the plea that the entire amount or the maximum admissible amount should be reimbursed to her. For the purpose, the learned counsel for the applicant relies on the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Shiv kant Jha Vs Union of India reported as 2018 (3) SLR 328 (SC), according to which, once the medical treatment having been taken is established, it cannot be rejected on technical grounds.

We would like to quote the relevant portion of this judgment: -

“13) It is a settled legal position that the Government employee during his life time or after his retirement is entitled to get the benefit of the medical facilities and no fetters can be placed on his rights. It is acceptable to common sense, that ultimate decision as to how a patient should be treated vests only with the doc