IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15595 of 2001 SRI ABINASH CHANDRA PRASAD, SON OF LATE SARYU PRASAD, EX-HEAD CLERK, DARBHANGA COLLECTORIATE, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SEMARI, P.O. KANSI SEMARI ,POLICE STATION SEMARI, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA. .,……………. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE HEALTH COMMISSIONER-CUM-DIRECTOR, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR-IN-CHIEF, HEALTH SERVICES, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, NEW SECRETARIATE, PATNA. 5. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SADAR, DARBHANGA 6. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA ……………….. Respondents For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anil Kumar, G.P.-XI. ----------- 8 15.10.2008 Heard Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner’s prayer is to direct the concerned respondent to reimburse his medical expenses which he incurred for treatment of his ailment at Apollo Hospital, Madras between the period 16.4.1992 to 1.5.1992. Petitioner has claimed that the he was also required to go to same hospital at Madras for review and he under took that journey alongwith an attendant on 12.9.1992 and came back to Muzaffarpur on 23.9.1992. After treatment, the petitioner claims to have submitted his medical expenses and vouchers for reimbursement through Annexure-6 series to the Director-in- Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna on 11.5.1993. When the - 2 - concerned authority of the Health Department did not reimburse the medical expenses claimed by the petitioner, he has preferred this writ petition for directions to the authorities to pay his medical expenses incurred for treatment of his disease outside the State of Bihar. On behalf of the respondents, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that for going for treatment outside State, prior permission of the competent authority was required to be taken because under the normal rules, treatment outside the State is not permitted. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the Health Department never received any request from the petitioner for prior permission and in such a situation, petitioner cannot be reimbursed the medical expenses which he claims to have incurred in his treatment outside the State. Had there been no controversy of facts whether the petitioner had actually applied for prior permission for his treatment at Apollo Hospital Madras or not, this Court would have considered to interfere in his favour, if it was found that application for prior permission had been kept pending for an unreasonable long period. However, in the present case, according to the petitioner, the prayer for prior permission was made by him through Annexure-4 dated 12.4.1992 before the Deputy Secretary, Health Department. This appears to be only a day or two before his departure for treatment at Madras. Further, it is found that petitioner has no reliable receipt either - 3 - granted by the Health Department, Government of Bihar or by the Postal Department to show that Annexure-4 was actually posted before he proceeded for treatment at Madras. It is also noticed that Annexure-4 is addressed not to the State Government in the Department of Health, which could be only the Secretary of the Health Department but it is addressed to Deputy Secretary and it has not been submitted through proper channel as there is no endorsement by the Controlling authority which in the case of the petitioner would be Collector, Darbhanga, In absence of any reliable material to show that the petitioner had actually applied for prior permission for treatment outside the State of Bihar and considering firm stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit that the State Government in the Department of Health had no information that he was referred to some outside place for treatment, it is not possible for this Court to hold that petitioner had substantially complied with his obligation under the rules to secure prior permission for treatment outside the State. On perusal of Annexures-1, 2 and 3, this Court finds that since 21st February, 1992, petitioner was aware about his ailment and had obtained recommendation for treatment outside the State from Medical experts. In such circumstances, he ought to have taken precaution of moving the appropriate authority in the State of Bihar at the earliest to seek prior permission for treatment outside the State. On account of such - 4 - lapse of the petitioner, this Court finds itself unable to grant any relief to him. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. pkj (Shiva Kirti Singh, J)