Dismissed

Post Graduate Institute of Medical Edu. & Research & Ors. v. Central Administrative Tribunal Chd & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Nov 2013CWP/25627/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment deals with a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order directing medical reimbursement. The Court rejected the institute's plea and held that given the emergency circumstances, the action to seek treatment at an approved external government hospital was justified. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's award.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's order directing the institute to reimburse the medical expenses.

Post Graduate Institute of Medical… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.25627 of 2013 Date of Decision: November 22, 2013

¶3

The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research and others .....Petitioners

¶4

versus

¶5

The Central Administrative Tribunal and others .....Respondents

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA.

¶7

Present : Mr.Rajesh Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶8

¶9

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶10

2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶11

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

¶13

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶14

The Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (for short, 'PGIMER') and its authorities are aggrieved by the order dated 06.08.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, whereby the claim of second respondent for medical reimbursement of expenses amounting to Rs.2,30,779.63 incurred on the treatment of his deceased wife on constant symptomatic treatment as an indoor patient in Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, Rohini, New Delhi, has been accepted and a direction to reimburse the said amount has been issued.

¶15

The deceased-Smt.Rachna Aggarwal was a regular employee of the first petitioner-Institute. She was working as Head Tailor in the Tailoring Department at Central Store, Nehru Hospital of the petitioner-Institute. Unfortunately she developed cancerous lumps in her left breast besides

¶16

Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.31 14:32 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶17

CWP No.25627 of 2013

¶18

[2]

¶19

suffering from Asthma. She was operated upon several times in PGIMER. It was averred by respondent No.2 in the OA that on a private visit to Delhi, the deceased got an acute attack due to which she was rushed to Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, Rohini, New Delhi for the Chemotherapy as was recommended by the PGIMER during the course of her treatment. Since the first Chemotherapy was taken in Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, Rohini, New Delhi, it was averred that the remaining five cycles were also required to be undergone in the same Institute, resulting into the expenses sought to be re-imbursed.

¶20

The petitioners denied the medical reimbursement on the plea that such a facility was very much available in the petitioner-Institute where the deceased was already undergoing treatment. The Tribunal, however, has rejected the objection observing that the deceased was got admitted in Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, Rohini, New Delhi in emergency, as was certified by the said hospital, and since the first Chemotherapy was taken in that hospital, the remaining cycle was required to be completed in the same Institute.

¶21

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and gone through the record.

¶22

It is true that the petitioner-Institute has also a dedicated wing for the subject-treatment and it must not have left any stone unturned to support the deceased in her fight against death. It is also proved on record that chemotherapy was recommended by the Subject Specialist in PGIMER only under whose supervision the deceased was taking treatment. It was during her private visit to Delhi that the emergency arose

¶23

Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.31 14:32 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶24

[3]

¶25

CWP No.25627 of 2013

¶26

and the deceased was taken to Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, Rohini, New Delhi which is also a Government Institute duly approved by the Central Government vide list Annexure P-18. In these circumstances and keeping in view the critical condition of the deceased who had already undergone multiple surgical operations, the action of respondent No.2 or the deceased employee to take chemotherapy from the above-stated Institute cannot be said to be unjustified.

¶27

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that no interference with the order passed by the Tribunal is called for.

¶28

Dismissed.

¶29

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE

¶30

November 22, 2013 [SURINDER GUPTA] Mohinder JUDGE

¶31

November 22, 2013

¶32

Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.31 14:32 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

Post Graduate Institute of Medical Edu. & Research & Ors. v. Central Administrative Tribunal Chd & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Post Graduate Institute of Medical Edu. & Research & Ors. v. Central Administrative Tribunal Chd & 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

Ranjit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Rajinder Singh & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Gurbhej Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Kanwal Singh etc. Vs State of Haryana etc.

Balbir Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Umesh Chand Vs Semi Conductor Laboratory (Deptt. of Space Government of India) and Ors.