-1- Civil Writ Petition No.19901-CAT of 2003. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: May 08, 2008. Sunita Rani ... Petitioner VERSUS Union of India and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. K.L. Dhingra, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. The prayer made in this petition is for quashing the order dated October 22, 2003 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, -2- Civil Writ Petition No.19901-CAT of 2003. Chandigarh (for short `the Tribunal), vide which Original Application No.94-HR of 2003 filed by petitioner Sunita Rani, who is widow of Vijay Kumar, a Class III employee in the office Garrison Engineer (North), M.E.S, Ambala Cantt (respondent No.3), for medical reimbursement on account of post heart-surgery treatment she underwent in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, (for short `P.G.I') has been dismissed and for issuing a direction to the respondents to make payment of the expenses incurred by her in this connection. The petitioner was operated upon for heart surgery in P.G.I on October 04, 1996. She was reimbursed the medical expenses for the same. It is pleaded that she was also being reimbursed the post surgery medical expenses till her husband was alive. Husband of the petitioner died on July 06, 2001. The petitioner requires regular medicines amounting to Rs.1500/- to Rs.2000/- per month. She submitted bills of her follow-up-treatment to the respondent-department, which were not paid to her on the ground that clarification was being sought from the Headquarters. She per force filed Original Application before the Tribunal, which was dismissed. In the written statement filed by respondents Nos.1 to 3, it has been stated that reimbursement for follow up treatment cannot be made as there is no such provision under Central Service (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944, after -3- Civil Writ Petition No.19901-CAT of 2003. the death of the person, who was employed with the respondents. It has been further pleaded that the petitioner is entitled to Rs.100/- per month as fixed medical allowance in pursuance of the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission. Further that a Government Servant, who is residing in a city where Central Government Health Scheme (for short `C.G.H.S') is applicable, would be entitled to complete benefit and medical reimbursement. Since there is no such provision for reimbursement of medical expenses in the case of family pensioner, the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit of medical reimbursement. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that medicines being regularly consumed by the petitioner after her heart surgery are most essential for her survival and reimbursement of the same cannot be declined merely on the ground that she is getting treatment as an outdoor patient. In the case of Ravi Kant v. The State of Haryana and others, 1998 (3) R.S.J. 705, wherein similar controversy i.e as to whether, after kidney transplant of an employee/dependent, he/she is entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses incurred for post operative medical treatment, came up for consideration, a Division Bench of this Court observed as under:- “ It has been submitted that only a -4- Civil Writ Petition No.19901-CAT of 2003. person who receives treatment as an indoor patient, is entitled to be reimbursed, may be that he is in receipt of fixed medical allowance as per the medical reimbursement rules as applicable to him. It has been submitted that as the petitioner is alleged to have taken treatment as an outdoor patient, he cannot claim reimbursement. It is true that the petitioner will not be entitled to reimbursement for this treatment if we go by the strict definition of `indoor and outdoor patients'. If we go by the strict definition of indoor and outdoor patient, the petitioner will not be an indoor patient. Fixed medical allowance to the tune of Rs.100/- is meant to compensate the employee/his family only for the treatment of casual diseases. Intention behind the provision of providing fixed medical allowances does not seem to be that employee/his family should not be compensated for such diseases which can prove fatal if consistency in treatment is not observed. It would bear repetition that petitioner is constantly taking -5- Civil Writ Petition No.19901-CAT of 2003. medicines, he is on medicines, he has to take medicines daily. If he does not take medicines daily, his remaining alive will be seriously in danger. When he is constantly under treatment and treatment is indispensable for him, it has to be viewed as if he is receiving that treatment in the hospital.” The present case is squarely covered by the ratio of Ravi Kant's case (supra). In fact, providing of medical assistance to sick and disabled is an integral part of the obligations of the State to improve public health. If the petitioner's case is tested on law, logic, rationale or compassion, she is entitled to medical reimbursement. That being so, any orders or instructions that may come in the way in denying proper medical reimbursement deserve to be ignored. It is not disputed that the petitioner was getting medical reimbursement with regard to follow up treatment during the life time of her husband as after surgery she was discharged from the hospital on January 15, 1997 and thereafter was continuously getting follow up treatment and reimbursement. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner also produced certificate issued by Dr.Raman, Cardiologist, P.G.I, depicting that the costly -6- Civil Writ Petition No.19901-CAT of 2003. medicines prescribed by him were essential for recovery of the petitioner and that no cheaper substitute of these medicines was available in the market. Once the respondent-Department was making reimbursement to the petitioner for follow up treatment of heart surgery during the life time of her husband, the same benefit cannot be denied to her after her husband's death. We accordingly hold that the expenses incurred by the petitioner on outdoor treatment, which the petitioner is taking as a follow up treatment after heart surgery, must be reimbursed to her as an indoor treatment, follow up treatment being integral part of the indoor treatment. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed, the order passed by the Tribunal is quashed, and the petitioner is held entitled to medical reimbursement with regard to follow up treatment of heart surgery regularly. However, learned counsel for the petitioner was fair enough to concede that the petitioner will not claim any reimbursement with regard to the medicines consumed by her after the death of her husband till today. In order to avoid inconvenience to the petitioner and multiplicity of litigation, it is made clear that the petitioner will submit claim for medical reimbursement on the last week of every month after completing requisite formalities and the respondent- Department will reimburse the amount within fifteen days of the submission of the claim. The petitioner will be at liberty -7- Civil Writ Petition No.19901-CAT of 2003. to give her Bank Account Number to the respondent- Department and the department will get the amount of reimbursement deposited in the said account regularly. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE JUDGE May 08, 2008. ak