Dismissed

Union of India & Ors. v. Avtar Singh Sachdeva & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Nov 2011CWP/21333/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal's order allowing a retired railway employee's claim for medical reimbursement incurred at a private hospital during an emergency for his wife's life-saving bypass surgery.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of written petition with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Avtar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CWP No.21333 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.21333 of 2011

¶5

Date of Decision: November 17, 2011

¶6

Union of India and others

¶7

.......Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Avtar Singh and another

¶10

.......Respondents

¶11

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA

¶12

Present: Mr.Nitin Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

<><><>

¶14

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.

¶15

The Union of India is before us in the present writ petition impugning the order dated 15.4.2011, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as 'the CAT') whereby the claim of respondent No.1 seeking directions for reimbursement of the medical claim of his wife as per rates prescribed by the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Research/Central Government Health Scheme (hereinafter to be referred as 'PGIMER and CGHS') has been allowed.

¶16

The brief facts are that respondent No.1 retired from the post of Chief Booking Supervisor, Indian Railways on 1.12.1994 on attaining the age of superannuation. His wife was admitted in Government Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh on 21.1.2005 on complaining of chest pain. She remained in the ICU till 24.1.2005 whereupon she was referred to PGIMER.

¶17

CWP No.21333 of 2011

¶18

¶19

At PGIMER, Chandigarh, she underwent angiography on 29.1.2005 and was discharged on 3.2.2005. On the same day while at her home at Mohali, she complained of severe chest pain and was immediately rushed to the nearby hospital i.e. Fortis Hospital in a state of emergency. Wife of respondent No.1 was operated upon on 4.2.2005 for Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting. Upon recovery, she was discharged from Fortis Hospital on 12.2.2005.

¶20

Respondent No.1 thereafter submitted a claim for medical reimbursement for the treatment of his wife in General Hospital, Chandigarh for Rs.385/-, PGI Chandigarh for Rs.4,263/- and Fortis Hospital, Mohali for Rs.1,63,737/-. The Railway Authorities having sanctioned an amount of Rs.2,209/- only for the treatment of the wife of respondent No.1. As such, respondent No.1 was constrained to file OA No.369/PB/2010 before CAT. Vide impugned order dated 15.4.2011, CAT has admitted the claim for medical re-imbursement as regards the treatment of the wife of respondent No.1 as per rates prescribed by PGIMER/CGHS.

¶21

Mr.Nitin Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners has been heard. He does not dispute the treatment and medical procedures undergone by the wife of respondent No.1 at PGIMER as also at Fortis Hospital, Mohali. He, however, raises a challenge to the order passed by the CAT by placing reliance on a Railway Board circular dated 31.1.2007 to contend that it was incumbent upon respondent No.1 to have sought prior permission from the competent authority i.e. the Railway Board before getting his wife any kind of treatment from Fortis Hospital, Mohali. Learned counsel also contends that the requirement of an “Essentiality Certificate-C” from the authorized Railway Medical Officer, ex-post facto, indicating that it was essential to

¶22

CWP No.21333 of 2011

¶23

¶24

take treatment from a non-recognised hospital in an emergent medical condition which threatened the health or life of the patient had also not been produced by respondent No.1.

¶25

We may notice that the claim of respondent No.1 as regards the expenses borne on the treatment of his wife are based in terms of the “Retired Employees Liberalized Health Scheme, 1997” issued by the Railway Authorities. In terms thereof, a retired employee who becomes a member of the scheme along with the dependent family members are entitled to all the benefits equal to serving employees i.e. they become entitled to full payment/re-imbursement of medical treatment, and in case of emergency, they are entitled to payment/re-imbursement of medical treatment at the CGHS rates if the treatment is availed in a private hospital due to an emergency situation. It is the admitted position of fact as pleaded in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that respondent No.1 had become a member of the aforementioned scheme and the requisite medical card had also been issued to him entitling him to avail of the benefit of the scheme w.e.f. 9.3.2004.

¶26

We are unable to appreciate the stand on behalf of the petitioners and the objections being raised with regard to the release of medical re-imbursement for the treatment that the wife of respondent No.1 had undertaken at Fortis Hospital. The factum of the wife of respondent No.1 having undergone a Bypass Surgery on 4.2.2005 at Fortis Hospital, Mohali is not disputed. It is also not in dispute that prior to 4.2.2005, the wife of respondent No.1 had remained admitted in Government Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh in the last week of January 2005 and thereafter, for a period of almost ten days in PGI. It is beyond comprehension for the

¶27

CWP No.21333 of 2011

¶28

¶29

petitioners to contend that immediately prior to undergoing major heart surgery, a patient would be obligated to approach an authority to seek a declaration regarding a medical emergency having befallen rather than rushing to the nearest hospital to get immediate medical attention.

¶30

The right of a citizen to get medical care is a part and parcel of the right to live under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Such right is further re-enforced under Article 47 of the Constitution. It is an equally sacred obligation cast upon the State. The observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 1996(2) SCT 234 in this regard are most relevant, which are re-produced as under:

¶31

“11. It is otherwise important to bear in mind that self preservation of one's life is the necessary concomitant of the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, fundamental in nature, sacred, precious and inviolable. The importance and validity of the duty and right to selfpreservation has a species in the right of self defence in criminal law. Centuries ago thinkers of this Great Land conceived of such right and recognised it. Attention can usefully be drawn to verses 17,18,20 and 22 in Chapter 16 of the Garuda Purana (A Dialogue suggested between the Divine and Garuda, the bird) in the words of the Divine :

¶32

Vinaa dehena kasyaapi canpurushaartho na vidyate Tasmaaddeham dhanam rakshetpunyakarmaani saadhayet Without the body how can one obtain the object of human life? Therefore protecting the body which is the wealth, one should perform the deeds of merit.

¶33

CWP No.21333 of 2011

¶34

¶35

Rakshayetsarvadaatmaanamaatmaa sarvasya bhaajanam Rakshane yatnamaatishthejje vanbhaadraani pashyati

¶36

One should protect his body which is responsible for every thing. He who protects himself by all efforts, will see many auspicious occasions in life.

¶37

Sharirarakshanopaayaah kriyante sarvadaa budhaih Necchanti cha punastyaagamapi kushthaadiroginah

¶38

The wise always undertake the protective measures for the body. Even the persons suffering from leprosy and other diseases do not wish to get rid of the body.

¶39

Aatmaiva yadi naatmaanamahitebhyo nivaarayet Konsyo hitakarastasmaadaatmaanam taarayishyati

¶40

If one does not prevent what is unpleasant to himself, who else will do it? Therefore one should do what is good to himself.”

¶41

The present writ petition is a mere reflection of the mechanical

¶42

manner and utter insensitivity with which a claim for medical reimbursement of an employee has been dealt with at the hands of a welfare State. We are unable to refrain ourselves from observing that the present writ petition is wholly frivolous.

¶43

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Chandigarh.

¶44

( PERMOD KOHLI ) ( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶45

November 17, 2011 SRM

¶46

Note : Whether referred to the Reporter? Yes/No

Union of India & Ors. v. Avtar Singh Sachdeva & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India & Ors. v. Avtar Singh Sachdeva & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harsh Inder Sharma Vs Central Administrative Tribunal, Chd and Ors.

Meena Kumari Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Karam Singh Vs Director General of Police , Panchkula and Ors.

Ishwar Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Jasbir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ravinder Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.