Allowed

Ranjan Bhattacharjee v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Tripura HC24 Jul 2017WP(C)/267/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a police constable for medical reimbursement of Rs. 59,332/- incurred due to injuries sustained during an ambush. Court directed payment waiving usual formalities due to lost records and directed authorities to approach the insurance company for policy benefits.

What did the court decide?

Directed to pay medical bill of Rs. 59,332/- waiving formalities and to approach insurance company to settle personal accident claim.

Ranjan Bhattacharjee Vs the State of Tripura and Ors. — Service and Employment | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA

¶2

WP(C) 267 of 2014

¶3

	C.2377 Sri Ranjan Bhattacharjee, S/o Lt. Haripada Bhattacharjee, Resident of Uttar Jogendranagar, P.S. East Agartala, District-West Tripura.
	………… Petitioner - Vs –
1.	The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary-cum- Commissioner, Home Department, Government of Tripura, Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura.
2.	Director General of Police, Government of Tripura, West Tripura, Agartala.
3.	Assistant Inspector General of Police (HQrs) Government of Tripura, West Tripura, Agartala.
4.	Deputy Inspector General of Police (S/Range) Government of Tripura, West Tripura, Agartala.
5.	Superintendent of Police Government of Tripura, West Tripura, Agartala.
6.	Head Clerk, Office of the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura, Agartala. ………..Respondents
	BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
	For the petitioner : Mr. D Saha, Advocate
	For the respondents : Mr. J Majumdar, Advocate. Date of hearing and
	delivery of order :*24.07.2017*
	Whether fit for reporting :No

¶4

WP(C) 267/2014

¶5

Page 1 of 7

¶6

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

¶7

Heard Mr. D Saha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. J Majumdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶8

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner who was a Constable working under the Tripura Police organization, has urged this Court for directing the respondents to reimburse the claim of Rs.50,930/- with interest @ 12.5% from 07.04.2004 when the said bill was submitted. Further, the petitioner has urged this Court that since he was insured under the Group Personal Accident Benefit and has suffered serious injuries within the meaning and ambit of the Personal Accident Insurance Policy (Group), he is entitled to some financial yield by virtue of that policy. To pave that relief, the petitioner has urged this Court to interfere with the memoranda dated 13.07.2006 (Anenxure-6 to the writ petition) and 23.06.2007 (Annexure-12 along with the order dated 04.01.2012 (Anenxure-15 to the writ petition).

¶9

3. Mr. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that while the petitioner was working as a Constable he was posted at Sidhai Police Station. On 11.08.2003 while he along with 13 other Police/SPOs were proceeding towards Barkathal Market for law and order duties in a bullet proof vehicle they were ambushed by a group of armed extremists and those extremists exploded one powerful grenade and also fired at the police personnel. The petitioner received several bullet injuries on his person. In this regard, Sidhai PS case No. 64/2013 under Section 396/397 IPC with Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 35 of the Explosive Substances Act was registered. The petitioner was referred to the SSKM Hospital, Kolkata immediately after he was brought to the GBP Hospital in a

¶10

WP(C) 267/2014

¶11

Page 2 of 7

¶12

critical condition and accordingly the petitioner was sent to the SSKM Hospital on 12.08.2013 but due to non-availability of seat the petitioner was admitted at Kolkata National Medical College on 12.08.2003 and his treatment was continued there till 07.11.2003. The petitioner was in serious financial crisis when he had to come back to Agartala. He was at that time receiving treatment at GBP Hospital, Agartala but once the petitioner had to go to Nightangle Hospital at Silchar where he was again treated for the period from 12.11.2003 to 10.11.2004.

¶13

4. The petitioner became orthopedically handicapped as his right ankle was seriously damaged in the said accident. The concerned Medical Board declared him 15% permanently disabled. They had also issued one permanent disablement certificate under No.2401 dated 09.02.2005 in favour of the petitioner. In the process, the petitioner incurred medical expenses of Rs.59,392 towards expenditure of medicines and other charges. The petitioner raised the bill for medical reimbursement and submitted it through the proper channel.

¶14

5. The petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.55,000/- as advance having been sanctioned by the DIG of Police, South Range. By the radiogram dated 19.02.2004, the petitioner was asked to refund the said amount of Rs.55,000/- within February, 2004 otherwise the said amount shall be recovered from his salaries. The petitioner filed representations on various occasions for releasing the medical reimbursement bill and for giving the financial assistance for the medical treatment without any positive result yield.

¶15

6. It appears from the record, produced by the petitioner, that at one point of time all the original medical records as filed by him was lost

¶16

WP(C) 267/2014

¶17

Page 3 of 7

¶18

from the custody of the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura and from the observation made by the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura on 24.10.2006 it clearly appears that the petitioner had submitted all the original records to one Naniram Reang to process the bill but from his custody the original medical records were lost and those could not be traced out subsequently.

¶19

7. It further appears from the communication dated 04.01.2012 (Anenxure-15 to the writ petition) that the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura communicated to the Assistant Inspector General, Headquarters in respect of the payment of the medical reimbursement as asked by the petitioner. In that communication, the Superintendent of Police has certified that the amount was incurred for the treatment purposes. The expenditure was made for purchasing medicines and conducting various medical tests while Sri Bhattacharjee was admitted at GBP Hospital, Agartala, Kolkata Medical Hospital, as well as Silchar Nightangle Hospital for treating injuries received from the said attack of a group of extremists while he was proceeding along with seven police personnel from Sidhai P.S. for performing law and order duties to Barkathal, West Tripura on 21.08.2003.

¶20

8. It transpires that the petitioner was asked to submit the original records but for the records were no more available with him he could not produce the same. Mr. Saha, learned counsel has submitted that with the reply, the respondents have submitted a copy of the medical reimbursement bill for Rs.59,322/- as submitted by the petitioner supported by all documents.

¶21

WP(C) 267/2014

¶22

Page 4 of 7

¶23

9. Mr. Saha, learned counsel has submitted that now the petitioner cannot be held responsible for non-submission of the original medical records as asked for and that cannot be the basis for impounding the bill for such a long time. However, Mr. Saha, learned counsel has submitted that under the Personal Accident Insurance Policy (Group) the petitioner is entitled to some benefit for the damage he has suffered.

¶24

10. Mr. J Majumdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has furnished a copy of the Personal Accident Insurance Policy (Group). This is not the policy in particular to the petitioner or his group but it is a form of the policy utilized for this purpose. However, with that said policy the subscription receipt in the name of the petitioner has been annexed. It shows that for the relevant period from 10.01.2003 to 09.01.2004 the petitioner was covered by the said policy and now there cannot be any amount of confusion in respect of whether the accident occurred within the said policy period or not as the accident occurred on 21.08.2003.

¶25

11. Mr. J Majumdar, learned counsel has further submitted that the National Insurance Company Ltd. which provided the Personal Accident Insurance Policy (Group) has not been made a party and as such this Court may not pass any observation or direction in respect of such claim on Personal Accident Insurance Policy (Group). Mr. Majumdar has further submitted that the respondents are of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit as he has received injury on 11.08.2003 due to extremist attack. A person insured under the Personal Accident Insurance Policy (Group) would be benefitted in case of accidental death only, not otherwise.

¶26

WP(C) 267/2014

¶27

Page 5 of 7

¶28

12. This Court is in total disagreement with the submission made by Mr. Majumda, learned counsel appearing for the State respondents inasmuch as from a bare reading of the policy it appears that the company shall pay to the insured to the extent and in the manner hereinafter provided in the policy that if any of the insured person shall sustain any bodily injury resulting solely and directly from the accident caused by external violent and visible means, the sum set forth in the policy in respect of any of the insured persons specified in the schedule shall be payable. It has been further noticed by this Court that there are various forms of financial advantage which are described below the condition (ii). The petitioner may come against one of such categories for the injuries that he has received. It is the duty of the respondents to ask the Insurance Company to pay the petitioner the due benefit from the said policy for the said accident from which the petitioner has suffered severe injuries, but the respondents have not done so as yet. At least, there is no reflection in their reply.

¶29

13. Having regard to the documents placed with the writ petition as well as the reply, the averments and submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court finds that this is a very unusual case and that by ordinary rules that cannot be covered inasmuch as all the original medical records are lost while the authorities were considering the prayer made by the petitioner for medical reimbursement to the extent of Rs.59,332/- as is evident from the medical reimbursement bill (Anenxure-R1 to the reply filed by the respondents).

¶30

14. Having appreciated the observation made by the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura in the communication dated

¶31

WP(C) 267/2014

¶32

Page 6 of 7

¶33

04.01.2012 (Anenxure-15 to the writ petition), the respondents are directed to pay the medical reimbursement bill waiving the usual formalities and for purpose of determining the actual amount they can obtain the opinion of the Director of Health Services. The reimbursement shall be made within a period of four months from the date when the petitioner shall submit a copy of the writ petition.

¶34

15. Further, since the National Insurance Company Ltd. is not a party in the array, this Court is not called for to pass any effective order against the said insurer. But the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura, Agartala may formally approach the National Insurance Company Ltd. after giving photocopy of all the medical reports for releasing the benefits from the said Personal Accident Insurance Policy (Group) for which the petitioner paid the premium/subscription for the Policy under No.2002/8200765 for the assured sum of Rs.3,00,000/- per person for settling the claim by waiving the technical objections.

¶35

16. With these observations and direction this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.

¶36

There shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE

lodh

WP(C) 267/2014

Page 7 of 7

Ranjan Bhattacharjee v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjan Bhattacharjee v. the State of Tripura 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

Mira Mukherjee Vs State of Tripura andORS

Sushant Kumar Vs Sahara India and Ors.

Ram Sankar Debbarma @ Ramsankha Debbarma @ Biswarath Debbarma on Behalf of Accd.Sanjoy Debbarma Vs State Of Tripura

Rajesh Paul and Ors. Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Jhumur Ghosh Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Icici Lombard General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Kinkar Chakraborty and Ors.