Dismissed

Dr.Thomas Kutty L v. University of Calicut

Kerala HC19 May 2016WP(C)/7997/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a University employee injured in a train accident, sought reimbursement for treatment at a private hospital. The University rejected the claim as the hospital was not recognized under the applicable Rules. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding the rejection lawful.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition dismissing the application for medical reimbursement was dismissed.

Dr.Thomas Kutty L Vs University of Calicut — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2016/29TH VAISAKHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 7997 of 2011 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

DR.THOMASKUTTY L., S/O.LAZAR, AGED 47 YEARS, READER, DEPARTMENT OF MALAYALAM AND KERALA STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, UNIVERSITY POST – 673 635.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.TITUS DOMINIC

¶9

RESPONDENT :

¶10

UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY POST, PIN-673635.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW, SC

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

...2/-

¶15

WP(C).No. 7997 of 2011 (Y)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶18

EXT.P1 : PHOTOCOPY OF ACCIDENT REGISTER CUM-WOUND CERTIFICATE DT. 28-3-2010 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT HOSPITAL, KOLLAM.

¶19

EXT.P2 PHOTOCOPY OF TREATMENT CERTIFICATE DT. 11-5-2010 ISSUED BY KERALA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶20

EXT.P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO P1.D/H2/4314/2010 DT. 8-9-2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶21

EXT.P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 27-12-2010 FILED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXT.P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO. P1.D.H2/4314/2010 DT. 13-1-2011 OF THE RESPONDENT.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.V.ASHA J.

-------------------------------------------------

¶29

W.P.(C) No.7997 of 2011

¶30

-------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19^th day of May, 2016

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

The petitioner, who is working as a Reader in the Department of Malayalam and Kerala studies under the University of Calicut, sustained severe injuries in a train accident, which occurred on 27.03.2010. He underwent treatment in Kerala Institute of Medical Sciences ('KIMS' for short), Thiruvananthapuram as evident from Ext.P2. The petitioner submits that he had spent a sum of Rs.1,90,816.81 towards his treatment. Claiming reimbursement of the same, he submitted application before the University. The University placed the matter before the Syndicate. But later, his request was rejected by Ext.P5 on the ground that the Hospital in which he underwent treatment is a private hospital which is not identified for reimbursement of the expenses for the treatment. Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking directions to the respondent for effecting payment towards medical reimbursement.

¶33

W.P.(C) No.7997 of 2011

¶34

¶35

The respondent University has filed a counter affidavit saying that reimbursement of medical expenses to the staff under the University is governed by the provisions contained in Kerala Government Servants Medical Attendance Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'). As per the provisions contained in these Rules, in order to avail reimbursement benefits, treatment has to be undertaken only from Government hospitals inside the State or private hospitals recognized by Government or hospitals inside and outside identified/recognized by the Government or on reference of the Unit chief of the concerned department of the Government hospital for better treatment. It is stated that the petitioner did not furnish any material to prove that he was referred to KIMS hospital for better treatment by Unit chief of the concerned Government hospital and therefore his claim cannot be accepted.

¶36

On considering the contentions raised by either side, it is seen that the employees under the respondent University are not entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses except in accordance with the provisions

¶37

W.P.(C) No.7997 of 2011

¶38

¶39

contained in Kerala Government Servants Medical Attendance Rules, 1960. As per Rule 8(1) of the said Rules, the expenditure incurred by a Government servant on medical treatment cannot be reimbursed if he is admitted in a non-Government Institution or by consulting a private Doctor except as provided in the rules. Rule 8(2) of the Rules provides that Director of Health Services has to specify the list of private medical institutions within the State to which Govt servant may resort for treatment. It also provides that no private medical institution shall be notified where a Government medical institution capable of giving similar treatment exists within a radius of 5 miles. Under Rule 8(3), Govt. servants who do not have any govt medical institution within a radius of 5 miles of their station, when resort to such notified private medical institutions, the charges incurred therein by them can be re-imbursed. It further provides that the private institutions recognized for treatment under Rule 8(3) can be restored to only in cases of emergency and not as a routine course. The list of diseases, and centres where treatment facilities are available and approximate

¶40

W.P.(C) No.7997 of 2011

¶41

¶42

treatment charges are given in Appendix 1 of the Rules. The KIMS hospital in which petitioner underwent treatment was not one specified by the Director of Health Services and it was not included in the list of hospitals notified in Appendix 1, at the relevant time. The respondent University considered the application of petitioner with reference to the rules and rejected the same seeing that his claim cannot be accepted in the light of the conditions stipulated in the rules. Petitioner has not pointed out any other provision of law which enables him to get re-imbursement of medical expenses other than under the provisions of the rules. Therefore the action of the respondents in denying re-imbursement cannot be said to be illegal. In the above circumstances no relief can be granted to petitioner.

¶43

This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶46

AS/20/5/16

Dr.Thomas Kutty L v. University of Calicut

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Thomas Kutty L v. University of Calicut

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Sadasivan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

K.S.Ratheesh Vs Corporation of Cochin

S.Krishna Kumar Vs Ambalapuhz North Grama Panchayath

C.S.Lakshmanan Vs the Project Officer, Jalanithi & Anr.

P.Rufaid Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Sajeer.C.M. Vs State of Kerala