Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ram Narayan Lal Srivastava vs Union Of India on 14 September, 2010
OPEN COURT
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD
( THIS THE 14th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010 )
PRESENT :
HONBLE MRS. MANJULIKA GAUTAM, MEMBER - A
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 364 OF 2008.
(U/s, 19 Administrative Tribunal Act1985)
Ram Narayan Lal Srivastava, S/o Jagarnath Prasad, R/o H. No. S-2/56 Dithory Mahal, Ardali Bazar, Varanasi.
. . . . . . . .Applicant
By Advocate : Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava
Versus
1. Union of India, through Director General, R.H.S Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Director General, R.H..S Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. Chief Medical Superintendent, Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi.
. . . . . . . . . Respondents
By Advocate : Shri P.N Rai
O R D E R
Heard Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri S.P. Mishra holding brief of Shri P.N Rai, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This O.A. is regarding medical reimbursement on account of heart surgery done in a recognized hospital but not railway hospital. The applicant is a retired railway servant. Under the Rules, expenses of private treatment in recognized hospital can be reimbursed, only if a medical emergency is perceived.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that there is no medical emergency and applicant in a planned way got the surgery done and is trying to get the medical reimbursement whereas Railways Hospital is easily providing the heart surgery facility at Varanasi where applicant was residing. The entire matter hinges upon whether the surgery conducted in the case of the applicant was under medical emergency or not?. Applicant has placed on record at page 31 Annexure A-4 a certificate from Professor and Head Cardiovascular Surgery, Bombay Hospital Institute of Medical Science Consultant Cardiac Surgeon, Central Railway, Indian Army, Ashvini Hospital. The certificate reads as follows:-
Mr. R.N.Lal Srivastava came to us with severe symptoms of aortic valve disease. He was admitted as an emergency. He underwent angiography and emergency aortic valve replacement on 28.07.2003.
4. It is difficult to understand why this certificate of recognized medical hospital, who is also Head of Cardiovascular Surgery, Bombay Hospital Institute of Medical Science and Consultant Cardiac Surgeon has not been accepted by the Railways. I am, therefore, directing the respondents to look at the documents again and then examine the matter of the applicant afresh. It is also being stated again and again by the applicant that he had undergone Hydrocele Surgery in the year 2002 but that matter is not connected in any way with heart surgery for which he is claiming reimbursement. In the appellate order, reference has been made to hydrocele surgery, which was planned surgery and conclusion has been drawn that the surgery was not done as an emergency.
5. In view of the Rules, which provide for emergency in such cases, the respondents are directed to look into the matter afresh in the light of medical opinion given by Head of Department of Bombay Hospital and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with Rules and law within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
6. With the above observations/directions, the O.A. is disposed of. No costs.
Member (A) Manish/-
??
??
??
??
3