Writ petition filed for medical reimbursement of Rs. 4,21,450 for COVID-19 treatment. Court dismissed plea as treatment occurred in a non-networking hospital, SPO2 was 97%, and petitioner was not deemed critical.
Petitioner is not entitled to medical reimbursement; impugned order rejecting claim is upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD)No.5189 of 2022
D.Suresh
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:28.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.(MD)No.5189 of 2022
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts,
3rd Floor, Integrated office complex for Finance Department No.571 Anna Salai, Nandanam
Chennai 600 035.
2.The District Collector Madurai
Madurai District.
3.The Block Development Officer, Kallikudi Union, Kallikudi.
4.The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Divisional Office VI, 5th floor, PLA Rathna Towers, 212 Anna Salai, Chennai 6
... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent vide his proceedings RC.No.21622/NHIS-1/2021 dated 18.11.2021 and quash the same and direct the respondent to pay medical reimbursement of medical expenses of Rs.4,21,450/- due to the petitioner by the respondents.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.A.Abdul Muthalif For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheeshkumar for R1 to R2 Addl.Government Pleader Mr.S.Shanmugavel for R3 Addl. Government Pleader Mr.A.Shajahan for R4
ORDER
The order of rejection rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for medical reimbursement on the ground that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
1/3
W.P.(MD)No.5189 of 2022
petitioner has taken treatment for COVID-19 infection in a non networking hospital and further the petitioner has not taken treatment for critical and further the petitioner was not critical for the purpose of claiming medical reimbursement.
2.The petitioner was affected by COVID-19 infection and had taken treatment in a non-networking hospital, which is not disputed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner had taken treatment for critical and therefore, he is entitled for medical reimbursement as per the Government orders.
Assistant Registrar (CS-I)
// True Copy //
/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
RR
To
No.571 Anna Salai, Nandanam
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Chennai 600 035.
2/3
W.P.(MD)No.5189 of 2022
2.The District Collector Madurai Madurai District. 3.The Block Development Officer, Kallikudi Union, Kallikudi. 4.The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Divisional Office VI, 5th floor, PLA Rathna Towers, 212 Anna Salai, Chennai 6 +1 CC to M/s.A.SHAJAHAN, Advocate ( SR-22317[F] dated 28/04/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.ABDUL MUTHALIF, Advocate ( SR-22750[F] dated 29/04/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.SPL. GP ( SR-22980[F] dated 29/04/2022 ) W.P.(MD)No.5189 of 2022 28.04.2022 RD(23.05.2022) 3P 8C
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to medical reimbursement for COVID-19 treatment despite being treated in a non-networking hospital and not being categorized as critical.
Whether an emergency situation existed that would override the network hospital requirement for claim eligibility.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
D. Suresh
Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts
District Collector Madurai
Block Development Officer, Kallikudi
Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company
S.M. Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
