Allowed

Raj Nath Singh v. The Bihar State Power holding Company Limted and Ors.

Patna HC8 Jan 2015CWJC/8711/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition where an employee of Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Ltd. sought reimbursement for medical treatment at Gurgaon. The claim was rejected due to lack of prior permission. The Court found the respondent's officer negligent in processing the application and directed reimbursement.

What did the court decide?

Directs the respondent to examine submitted medical bills, verify them, and pay the remaining unpaid amount within six weeks.

Raj Nath Singh Vs The Bihar State Power holding Company… — Medical Negligence | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8711 of 2013

¶2

====================================================== Raj Nath Singh Son Of Late Jag Narayan Singh Resident Of Village - Nirakhpur, P.O. And P.S. Paliganj, District - Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited, through its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna 2. The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, the Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna 3. The Secretary, Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna 4. The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna 5. The Additional Secretary, Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna 6. The General Manager-Cum-Chief Engineer, Central Bihar, Area Electricity Board, Patna 7. The Deputy Director of Accounts Central, Bihar Area, Electricity Board, Patna 8. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Bihta 9. The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-Division, Bikram, District - Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate, For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 8 08-01-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd. The petitioner has claimed that his medical expenses incurred in treatment at Gurgaon of Rs.2,09,691/- has not been properly reimbursed to him, as he has been paid Rs.64,877/- only. Petitioner has served the Bihar State Electricity Board as a Khalashi, while in service he was fallen

¶3

Patna High Court CWJC No.8711 of 2013 (8) dt.08-01-2015

¶4

¶5

ill, he was examined by Doctor’s of Board which is apparent from the prescription dated 8.8.2010 and the Board of Doctor’s referred the petitioner to the I.G.M.S., PMCH, Patna, there he was examined by the Doctors of I.G.M.S., PMCH, Patna and after proper examination, for his proper treatment, referred him to the hospital at Gurgaon. There the petitioner was treated and thereafter he has submitted the medical bill for reimbursement of the same. He was paid Rs.64,877/- and rest amount of bill was rejected on the ground that before going for his treatment outside the State he had not taken proper permission from the Electricity Board.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the letter dated 22.5.2012 written by the Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board to the Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Bihta from which it appears that the petitioner filed a proper application for granting his permission for his treatment outside Patna and that was referred by the Assistant Engineer to the Executive Engineer but his application remained there and he had not referred his application to the Board. On that account the application filed by the petitioner did not reach to the Board for its consideration. For default of the respondent the

¶7

Patna High Court CWJC No.8711 of 2013 (8) dt.08-01-2015

¶8

¶9

petitioner can not suffer as because Executive Engineer did not refer the application of the petitioner whereas record shows that he was firstly examined by the Doctors of Board and on his advise he was properly examined by the Doctors of IGMS, PMCH, Patna and from where he was referred to the hospital at Gurgaon.

¶10

This Court is of the view that there is no laches on the part of the petitioner and he should not suffer for the laches or negligence committed by the Executive Engineer.

¶11

In this view of the matter, this Court directs the respondent to examine the bills submitted by the petitioner and after proper verification the same, should be paid rest amount without unnecessary delay, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶12

With the aforesaid observation this writ petition is disposed of.

¶13

Vinay/-

¶14

(Shivaji Pandey, J)

¶15

Raj Nath Singh v. The Bihar State Power holding Company Limted and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Nath Singh v. The Bihar State Power holding Company Limted and Ors.

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

Ravi Ranjan Prakash Vs The State Of Bihar

Pratima Kumari Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Pritam Kumar Srivastava Vs the Water Board Gaya a Wing of

Dinesh Sharma Vs The Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank and Ors.

Lakshmina Devi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Sushila Devi and Ors. Vs the State Bank of India and Ors.