THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE NO.753 OF 2009 ORDER: This Contempt Case has been filed by the petitioner complaining disobedience of the order, dated 26-02-2009, passed in W.P.No.12894 of 2008. 2. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 29-06-2009. In response, respondents entered appearance through their counsel and filed counter. Petitioner also filed reply affidavit. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that considering the claim of the petitioner towards medical expenses for self and his wife in part and rejecting the rest of the claim is not in accordance with the directions given by this Court in the Writ Petition and therefore respondents are liable for violation of the order, dated 26-02-2009. He would further submit that in case of reimbursement of medical expenses the petitioner is entitled to 100% reimbursement in respect of self and in case of family 75% and therefore the amounts claimed by the petitioner for self and his wife are to be reimbursed by the respondents. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that as per the scheme prevailing in the bank the maximum amount permissible for stent is Rs.40,000/- and PTC Angioplasty is Rs.33,000/. In respect of the wife of the petitioner, reimbursement is only to the extent of 75% and accordingly respondents considered the claim and released the amount as per the scheme in force. Learned counsel placed on record the scheme with regard to payment of other allowances. Paragraph No.14 of the scheme reads as hereunder: “Package charges: Some hospitals are charging on the basis of package for specialized treatment for diseases pertaining to Heart, Kidney, Coronary etc., In the following cases package charges will be reimbursed to the extent of 100% in the case of self and 75% in case of members of the family subject to the limits prescribed”. 6. Since the respondents considered the claim of the petitioner towards reimbursement of medical expenses as per the scheme, I do not see any valid ground in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondents have violated the directions given by this Court in the Writ Petition. If the petitioner is dissatisfied with the quantum of amount released by the respondents towards medical expenses, he is at liberty to take recourse in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, Contempt Case is dismissed at the stage of admission. ____________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 26th August, 2009. Tsy