1 Writ Petition No.5896/02 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN ITS CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5896 OF 2002 S.G.Sargar ..Petitioner Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ..Respondents Shri Shrikant Chavan i/b Shri U.R.Mankapue for the Petitioner Shri G.S.Hegde i/b M/s. G.S.Hegde & Associates for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 Coram:P.B.MAJMUDAR AND R.M. SAVANT, JJ. 14th July, 2010 P.C. 1. By this Petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks a direction against the Respondents that they should be directed to pay an amount of Rs.12,23,268.35 which is the amount incurred by the Petitioner as expenses for the treatment of his cardiac ailment. 3. The factual matrix in brief can be stated thus: The Petitioner at the relevant time was working as a driver with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) at its Sangli Division. It appears that the Petitioner was suffering from a heart ailment since the year 1998, on account of which, the Petitioner was facing difficulties in carrying out his duties as a driver with the MSRTC. The Petitioner had consulted the medical 2 Writ Petition No.5896/02 officer of the said Corporation and was also under the treatment of private physician at Kavathe Mahankal. 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that some time in the year 1999, the Petitioner was suffering from severe chest pain and was having breathing problems. The Petitioner accordingly approached on 11-1-2000, the doctor at Kavathe Mahankal, Dr. Anuradha Patil who is the authorised doctor for MSRTC. On diagnosis, the Petitioner was found to have a block in his heart and the said doctor opined that the Petitioner would have to get a permanent Heart pacemaker, as there was some enlargement in the heart. The Petitioner got himself admitted in the Ruby Hall Clinic on 13-1-2000 at Pune, where the Petitioner was initially treated. However, doctors in the said Ruby Hall Clinic were of the view that a permanent Heart pacemaker would have to be fixed on an urgent basis. After the Petitioner had given the go ahead, the permanent Heart pacemaker was implanted in the Petitioner on 14-1-2000. The Petitioner was thereafter discharged from the said Ruby Hall Clinic on 14-1-2000 and was given the discharge report. 5. The Petitioner thereafter submitted an application with the medical bill of the Ruby Hall Clinic, Pune, of Rs.1,23,268.35 to the H.M.O, MSRTC. The said application, it seems, was thereafter transferred to the Chief Medical Officer at Bombay, who rejected the Petitioner’s application for payment of the said 3 Writ Petition No.5896/02 medical bill. Thereafter, the Petitioner again approached the Chief Medical Officer and after various representations, on 8-1-2001 the Petitioner received a letter from the Respondent No.2, in which letter, it was stated that the Petitioner’s medical bill has been rejected as it is not covered by Circular No.9 of 1987 and that since the Petitioner has taken treatment from a private hospital, he is entitled to the benefits of reimbursements to the extent mentioned under Circular No.57 of 1980. Aggrieved by the fact that he was not held entitled to the entire amount of Rs.1,23,268.35 by the authorities and placing reliance on the Circular No.9 of 1987, the Petitioner has filed the instant Petition. The Petitioner has been paid an amount of Rs.61,780/- pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court. 6. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that since the Petitioner’s condition was serious, the Heart pacemaker had to be implanted on an urgent basis and, therefore, out of the dire necessity, the Petitioner had to approach the said Ruby Hall Clinic for the said implantation. The Learned Counsel further submitted that considering the said factual position, the Petitioner’s case is covered by the Circular No.9 of 1987 which specifically covers cases where the medical treatment is to be given on an emergency basis. 7. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the MSRTC, Mr. Hegde contended that the facts that can be deciphered from the above proceedings do 4 Writ Petition No.5896/02 not make out a case of emergency as the Petitioner was under going treatment for a long time. Mr. Hegde drew our attention to the Affidavit in reply filed by Dr. Anuradha Patil who had at one point of time treated the Petitioner. In the said Affidavit, it has been stated that in the Circular No.9 of 1987 dated 23-4-1987, 18 diseases / illness for which, the medical expenses would be borne by the MSRTC only when there is an extremely life threatening emergency. It is further averred in the said Affidavit that the Petitioner in the instant case has already consulted the Ruby Hall Clinic for his treatment of implantation and had obtained a certificate from Ruby Hall Clinic, which certificate categorically stated that the Petitioner was scheduled for Heart pacemaker implantation operation in December 1999-January 2000. It is further averred that after obtaining certificate from the Ruby Hall Clinic, the Petitioner came to the Deponent-Dr. Anuradha Patil and requested her for certificate to that effect to enable him to obtain leave from the employer, which the Deponent gave to the Petitioner. It is further averred that from the facts, it is very clear that there was no emergency of any nature of whatsoever for the implantation of the Heart pacemaker, since the Petitioner very well knew that he had to undergo the said operation. 8. As indicated above, the said Circular No.9 of 1987 covered situations where the treatment is to be given in an emergency situation. Such does not appear to be the case in the instant Petition, as the affidavit filed on behalf of the MSRTC points out that the Petitioner was under going treatment for 5 Writ Petition No.5896/02 a long time and even after the diagnosis disclosed that the Heart pacemaker was required, the Petitioner was due for such implantation in December 1999-January 2000. Considering the object of the Circular No.9 of 1987, in our view, it cannot be said that the Petitioner’s case fall within the ambit of the said Circular No.9 of 1987. The MSRTC had pursuant to the interim order paid to the Petitioner an amount of Rs.61,780/- which is the Petitioner’s entitlement in terms of the Circular No.57 of 1980. In our view the Petitioner would be entitled only to the said amount. 9. In so far as the Petitioner’s claim based on the Circular No.9 of 1987, we afraid that the said relief cannot be granted to the Petitioner and the same is accordingly rejected. We, therefore, allow the Petition by holding that the Petitioner is entitled to the amount of Rs.61,780/- in terms of his entitlement under Circular No.57 of 1980. 10. Rule is accordingly made absolute to the aforesaid extent. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)