THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.27818 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is an employee in a private firm, which, in turn, is covered by ESI Scheme. The petitioner is a subscriber, vide Insurance No.52-5253407. The insurance covers the petitioner as well as his wife. It is stated that at 7.00 p.m., on 24.05.2007, the wife of the petitioner suffered a snake bite and even by the time she was shifted to the nearby hospital, she went into coma. After treatment for about one week in the hospital, she is said to have been shifted to Mediciti Hospital. The petitioner submitted medical bills for reimbursement before the Branch Manager, E.S.I.Corporation, Secunderabad, the 3rd respondent, as well as before the Director of Insurance Medical Services, the 2nd respondent, for a sum of Rs.3,92,000/-. The wife of the petitioner is ultimately said to have died on 20.01.2008. This Writ Petition is filed with a prayer to direct the 2nd respondent herein to pay a sum of Rs.3,52,457/- The 3rd respondent filed counter-affidavit. The fact that the petitioner is covered by the insurance is not disputed. It is, however, stated that acting upon the representation made by the petitioner, a sum of Rs.60,000/- was sanctioned and paid on 21.11.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health and learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent. It is rather unfortunate that the wife of the petitioner could not be rescued from a snake bite. He was obviously under a panic situation. She was admitted into a private hospital, instead of taking her to nearby ESI Hospital. After obtaining treatment for one week in that hospital, she was shifted to another private hospital. Had the wife of the petitioner been admitted to ESI Hospital, the petitioner would have been spared of incurring huge expenditure towards treatment. In case proper treatment is not available in ESI Hospital, they would have referred her to another competent hospital and reimburse the bill. By the time, the writ petition was filed the application submitted by him before the 3rd respondent was under process. Shortly thereafter, the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- that was permissible under the relevant provisions of law. The petitioner is not able to demonstrate as to how he is entitled for any additional amount. So far as the claim against respondents 1 and 2 is concerned, the petitioner is not able to cite any provision, which enables him to get the relief. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed taking on record the fact that the 3rd respondent has paid a sum of Rs.60,000/-. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.23.04.2010. GJ