Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J
K.P.HARI – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C)/7978/2009
Medical - Government Servant Benefits - Central Government Health Scheme - Medical Reimbursement Procedure
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Government servant, claimed reimbursement for medical expenses incurred due to his wife's Cataract operation. Previous attempts to resolve the claim through administrative channels and a prior court order had failed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents failed to comply with its previous directions regarding the petitioner's reimbursement claim. It ordered timely action on the petitioner's request based on compliance with the earlier judgment.
Issues: Whether the respondents complied with the court's previous directions regarding medical reimbursement for the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity for respondents to follow court orders and ensure timely communication with the petitioner regarding his claims.
Final Decision: The court directed the third respondent to take action within one month on the petitioner's reimbursement request.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a retired Government servant under the Government of India. He retired from service on 1.3.1982. He is a holder of identity card under the Central Government Health Scheme and accordingly, the petitioner and his wife are entitled for free medical treatment or reimbursement.
2. In connection with the medical expenses consequent on a Cataract operation for the petitioner's wife, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application before the third respondent along with connected bills and documents claiming refund of Rs.12,533/-. This was followed by Ext.P3 dated 15.11.2008. Since no reply has been received in the matter, he again moved the second respondent by filing Ext.P4.
3. Earlier the petitioner had approached this Court by filing O.P.No.26437 of 1999 in respect of a similar claim which was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment. Therein, the original petition was disposed of directing the first respondent to wpc:7978 of 2009 consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 produced therein. Since no reply from the respondents, he sent a letter by Registered Post to the third respondent for the settlement of Medical Benefits.
It is evidenced as P7.
4. Heard the Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents.
5. In the light of the judgment, Ext.P6, the third respondent is directed to consider Ext.P7 and take appropriate action in the matter. The main compliant raised by the petitioner is that directions issued by this Court in Ext.P6 has not been complied with so far. The direction contained in Ext.P6 should have been considered and appropriate orders should have been passed by the concerned respondents. The non compliance of the directions in Ext.P6 is a serious matter and the respondents therein were bound to take a decision and communicate it to the petitioner within the time stipulated therein.
6. Therefore, the third respondent will pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7, in the light of Ext.P6 judgment within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The petitioner will produce a copy of this writ petition along wpc:7978 of 2009 with a copy of the judgment before the first respondent for compliance.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE bps
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
