IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931 WA.No. 473 of 2009(Y) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.11450/2006 Dated 23/07/2008 .................... APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS ------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR ECHS,(EX-SERVICEMEN CONTRIBUTORY HEALTH SCHEME) CENTRAL ORGANISATION ECHS, AG'S BRANCH, ARMY HEADQUARTERS, MANDE LINE- DELHI-CONNT-1110010. 3. THE STATION COMMANDER, STATION HEADQUARTERS, KOCHI(ARMY), INS VENDURUTHY, KOCHI-682 004. 4. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, ECHS POLY CLINIC, NAVAL BASE, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.SOLICITOR SMT.MOLY E.V., CGC. RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER ------------------------- M.SIVASANKARA PILLAI, AGED 65 YRS, (EX-HAVILDAR 628059 SIGNAL CORPS), S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI,THARAYIL HOUSE, PERUNGOLA-PO,KAYAMKULAM, ALLEPPEY-DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.R.PUSHPANGATHAN PILLAI THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A.No.473 OF 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in the writ petition are the appellants. The respondent herein was the writ petitioner. 2. The respondent is an Ex-service man. He joined Ex- service men Contributory Health Scheme introduced by the Defence Department of the Government of India on 20.4.2005. He admitted for medical check up in the Polyclinic at INS Sanjeevani on the said day. Thereafter, he got himself admitted as an inpatient in the Amrita Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre, Kochi, on 23.4.2005. He underwent heart surgery on 25.4.2005 and was discharged from the hospital on 3.5.2005. At the relevant time, the Amrita Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre was not included in the list of hospitals approved under the aforementioned health scheme. But, it was also included in the panel on 4.5.2005. The petitioner made a claim for reimbursement of the expenses incurred by him W.A.No.473/2009 2 for the heart surgery at Amrita Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre. The said request was turned down by Ext.P15. The writ petition was filed in the above factual background seeking appropriate reliefs. 3. The appellants resisted the prayers in the writ petition by filing a counter affidavit. According to them, he should have availed the facilities in Lisie Hospital, Ernakulam, instead, he has chosen to go to Amrita Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre, which at the relevant time was not one of the hospitals included in the panel. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, found that the respondents do not have a case that by undergoing treatment at Amrita Hospital, he incurred additional expenditure. Therefore, the writ petition was allowed directing the appellants to pay the amount actually paid by the respondent to Amrita Hospital. Feeling aggrieved by the said direction, this Writ Appeal is filed. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, in fact, the respondent was referred to the Lisie Hospital and therefore, he should have taken treatment there. Other W.A.No.473/2009 3 contentions are also raised. But, we notice that the appellants did not have a case that by undergoing treatment at Amrita Hospital, any additional expenditure was incurred. If the respondent underwent operation at the Lisie Hospital, the amount paid by him would have been reimbursed. Though, technically, the appellants have a case, in the absence of any prejudice, it is not necessary for this Court to invoke its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge has granted reliefs having regard to the special facts of the case. We are of the view that the exercise of the discretion by the learned Single Judge in this case cannot be described as illegal or perverse. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. The appellants are given one month's time from today to comply with the direction of the learned Single Judge. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ps