IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 OP.No. 16493 of 2000(L) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ N.KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.CHEKKUTTY, HEAD CONSTABLE - HC.1564, DISTRICT SPECIAL BRANCH, MALAPPURAM, RESIDING AT THEKKINTHODI HOUSE, NALLOOR, FEROKE.P.O., KOZHIKKODE - 673 631. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.C.S.DIAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM. BY SMT.SMITHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO 3 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/07/2008, ALONG WITH OP NO. 16506 OF 2000 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP NO.16493/2000 ORDER ON CMP NO. 27093/2000 IN OP NO.16493/2000 DISMISSED. 11/07/2008 SD/- (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF R2'S LETTER NO.MH5-97506/98/DHS ADDRESSED TO R3 WITH ESSENTIALITY CERTIFICATE, ISSUED FROM THE SUT HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P2 : COPY OF LETTER NO.F5/64099/97/MM ISSUED BY R3 TO PETITIONER. P3 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO GOVERNMENT. P4 : COPY OF LETTER NO.MH5-98777/98/DHS OF DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM WITH ESSENTIALITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE MEDICAL MISSION, MADRAS. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.R. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ---------------------- O.P.Nos.16493 & 16506 of 2000 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 11th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in the connected writ petitions and learned Government Pleader. 2. The petitioners in O.P.Nos.16493/2000 & 16506/2000 underwent coronary artery by-pass surgery in a private hospital, which was recognized by the Directorate of Health Services for Government servants to avail treatments, while working as Constable, District Special Branch, Malappuram and as Superintendent in the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Malappuram respectively. 3. The case of the petitioner in OP No. 16493/2000 is that he was given an interest free loan of Rs. 80,000/- for undergoing the surgery. However, when the medical bill for Rs.1,13,289/- was presented for reimbursement 2nd respondent allowed only Rs.70,939/- and directed him to remit Rs.9,061/- towards the balance amount of advance taken. So far as the case of petitioner in O.P.No. 16506/2000 is concerned, he was given an interest free loan of Rs.85,000/- for the surgery. However, when the medical bill for Rs.143,145/- was presented for reimbursement, 2nd O.P.Nos.16493 & 16506 of 2000 -2- respondent allowed only Rs.83,745/- and directed recovery of the balance amount from him out of the loan advance. It is against these proceedings petitioners filed these original petitions. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that the only Government hospital which had the facility, i.e. Sree Chithira Thirunal Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology, was fully booked for long period and consequently petitioners could not get the surgery done in time in that hospital. However, on account of emergency, petitioners got admitted in Sree Uthradam Thirunal Hospital at Thiruvananthapuram, where the operations were done. The contention of learned counsel is that petitioners are entitled to full reimbursement as against the partial allowances granted by 2nd respondent. Learned Government Pleader has stated that reimbursement is based on provisions of the Kerala Government Servants Medical Attendance Rules 1960, which in Rule 8(3) provides for reimbursement only to the extent permissible in a Government hospital, even if a sick employee undergoes treatment in an authorized private hospital. The case of 2nd respondent is that no medical expenses in excess of what is permissible under the above Rule could be reimbursed. Of course, the Rules do not visualize the case of emergency surgery required to save life like by-pass surgery, which cannot be carried on in all Government Hospitals. Therefore, O.P.Nos.16493 & 16506 of 2000 -3- the Rules certainly require amendment taking into account the emergency treatment required for sick Government servants like bye-pass surgery, accident cases etc. the want of facilities available in ordinary Government hospitals and long waiting in the few Government hospitals where the facilities are available. However, so long as the Rule is in force, the respondents are bound by the same and there is no provision to overlook the Rules. Learned counsel for petitioners have referred to order issued by the Government vide G.O.(P) No.45/97/H&FWD dated 18/02/1997, which contains certain guidelines for reimbursement. It is seen from the said order produced in Court that for coronary artery by-pass surgery, the approximate expenditure eligible for reimbursement is Rs.1 lakh. In the circumstances and in the light of the Government Order produced in Court, I direct 2nd respondent to reimburse Rs.1 lakh to the petitioners. Excess over the amount reimbursed after adjusting remaining loan amount, should be paid to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment by the petitioners. These original petitions are disposed of as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) jg