Tripura High Court
Pankaj Kumar Bhowmik vs The State Of Tripura & 3 Ors on 9 January, 2019
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: S. Talapatra
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP (C) No. 1228 of 2018
Pankaj Kumar Bhowmik
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura & 3 Ors.
----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) :Ms. A Debbarma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. N Choudhury, GA.
HON'BLE THE JUSTICE MR. S. TALAPATRA
Order
09/01/2019
Heard Ms. A Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. N. Choudhury, learned GA appearing for the respondents.
Since the petitioner's medical reimbursement bills have not been paid by the Competent Authority, [the Chief Engineer, PWD(DWS)] the petitioner has approached this court for a direction on the respondents for releasing his medical reimbursement bills to the extent of Rs.7,04,286.57 (in two parts).
Ms. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that on 31.01.2018 the petitioner fell ill suddenly and he was rushed to the BSM Hospital, Kamalpur. The said hospital had referred the petitioner to AGMC/GBP/ILS Hospital, Agartala for better management of his illness, as the petitioner was suffering CVA C HTN & L sided weakness.
The petitioner was straightaway taken to the ILS Hospital. The petitioner suffered cerebral stroke and paralysis, as stated in the writ petition, and the petitioner was admitted in the ILS Hospital on Page 2 of 3 31.01.2018. The petitioner had undergone brain surgery in ILS Hospital on 03.02.2018 and he was in the ILS Hospital from 31.01.2018 to 09.03.2018. For the said hospitalization, surgery and the post-operative recuperation the petitioner spent a sum of Rs.5,88,819.84/-.
Initially, the petitioner incurred expenditure of Rs.5,88,819.84/- and for the subsequent, hospitalization, he had incurred an expenditure to the extent of Rs.1,15,466.73/-. Then, on recovery the petitioner raised the medical bills for reimbursement, as the petitioner is working in the post of Assistant Engineer in PWD(DWS). The petitioner, indisputably, is borne in the medical reimbursement establishment as per the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 as adopted in the State of Tripura.
What appears is that even after a long lapse of time the Competent Authority did not sanction the bill for medical reimbursement. Being vexed by the circumstances, the petitioner has approached this court for the said direction.
Ms. A. Debbarma, learned counsel has also pointed out that when the second time the petitioner was admitted in the ILS Hospital, Agartala he was referred by the Standing Medical Board, AGMC & GBP Hospital by their referral note dated 09.07.2018 (Annexure-4 to this writ petition).The second operation was essentially required for repair of the skull. As stated earlier, the two bills were raised separately and the last bill was raised on 24.08.2018.
Ms. Debbarma, learned counsel has asserted that there is no Neurosurgery Department in any government hospital. Only in the ILS Hospital, which is a private medical institution, the said department functions.
Page 3 of 3
The petitioner has further submitted that the said surgery [the first one] was essentially required to save his life and as such the petitioner is well covered by the government policy as well as by the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944.
Be that as it may, since the Competent Authority has not taken any decision, it would be appropriate for this court to remit the matter back to the authority for taking a decision regarding those medical reimbursement bills as submitted by the petitioner.
Mr. Choudhury, learned GA has submitted that if there is no embargo, the appropriate authority will take the decision as per rules within a short while.
Having appreciated the circumstances, the averments made in the writ petition and the concession made by Mr. Choudhury, learned GA, this court is inclined to direct the respondents and particularly, the Chief Engineer, PWD(DWS) to take a decision on the medical reimbursement bills within a period of 1(one) month from the day when the petitioner shall produce a copy of this order.
If it is found that the petitioner is entitled to medical reimbursement as claimed, payment shall be made within 15(fifteen) days from the date of the decision. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision taken by the respondents, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach this court again.
In terms of the above, this petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. No costs.
JUDGE satabdi