Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Shalini Misra, Administrative Member
J.M. Chinnu Rao – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of emergency treatment and partial reimbursement denial. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. parties' contentions on cghs rates vs full claim. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. non-sustainability of rejection for empanelled hospital costs. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. supreme court precedents mandate full reimbursement in emergencies. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. oa allowed with direction for full settlement. (Para 14) |
ORDER
(As per Ms. Shalini Misra, Administrative Member)
The applicant filed the OA seeking the following relief:
“…to set aside and quash the letter No. G/MDF.34/II-dt. 31.12.2023 by directing the Respondents to pay the remaining amount Rs.4,04,474/- (Rs. Four Lakh Four Thousand and Seventy Four only) with interest @ 24% per annum till the date of realization of the amount … ”
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant joined the service of Railways on 24.06.1971 and retired voluntarily on 30.04.1993. He was admitted in Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad, which is an empanelled hospital, in emergency situation as he felt severe breathlessness and he became unconsciousness. The applicant was diagnosed with “hinipneumonia hyperglycemia with neuroglycopenia” which is life threatening and therefor
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
