Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Gobind Lal Chopra vs Union Of India Through on 3 March, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA No. 1824/2008 M.A. No. 1333/2008 New Delhi, this the 3rd day of March, 2009 HONBLE MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) Gobind Lal Chopra Aged about 78 years, Son of late Shri Ditta Mal Retd. Chief Ticket Inspector, Delhi Northern Railway, Delhi Division, Resident of 92, Gobind Park, Delhi-51 Applicant (By Advocate Shri H.P. Chakravorty) Versus 1. Union of India through The General Manager Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi 2. The Chief Health Director, N.Rly. Headquarters Office, Baroda House, New Delhi 3. The Chief Medical Superintendent, Divisional Hospital, Northern Railway, Delhi 06 Respondents (By Advocate Shri R.L. Dhawan) ORDER
Applicant has challenged orders dated 1.11.2003, 10.12.2003, 9.8.2004 and 7.10.2004 whereby his request for medical reimbursement was rejected and letter dated 20.12.2007 issued by the Central Public Information Officer (hereinafter referred to as CPIO) under RTI.
2. He has further sought direction to the respondents to sanction the medical reimbursement for Rs.16,485/- (Rupees Sixteen Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Five) only with interest @ 18% per annum thereon from 1.1.2004 till the date of actual payment.
3. It is submitted by the applicant that he is a retired Chief Ticket Inspector, as such was entitled to medical facilities from the Railways including reimbursement of medical expenses under Railway Employees Liberalised Health Scheme.
4. He was facing decreased vision in the right eye, therefore, he contacted Dr. Mukherjee Eye Clinic on 27.3.2003. The doctor advised immediate operation (page 33). The next day applicant approached Northern Railway, Central Hospital requesting them to refer him to Dr. Mukherjee Eye Clinic (page 34). The Railway doctor, however, asked him to come after 6 months on 31.3.2003 (page 16). It is in these circumstances he got his operation at Dr. Mukherjee Eye Clinic on 5.4.2003 from where he was discharged the same day but treatment went on till 16.7.2003. Applicant, therefore, claimed an amount of Rs.16483.60 rounded to Rs.16485/- on this account but the dealing clerk put some wrong note. Accordingly, applicant gave a complaint against him. His request was rejected vide letter dated 1.11.2003 on the following grounds:-
Non referred case, went to non-recognised hospital in non-emergency condition. Facilities available in all major hospital, i.e., Delhi Main Divisional Hospital and NR CH NDLS.
5. Being aggrieved, he gave an appeal but that too was rejected vide letter dated 7.10.2004. The last letter received is dated 20.12.2007, therefore, he had no other remedy but to file the present OA.
6. Respondents have opposed the claim. They have submitted OA is barred by limitation and no sufficient cause has been shown in the application for condonation of delay, therefore, MA and OA both are liable to be dismissed. They have relied on S.S. Rathore Vs. State of M.P. reported in AIR 1990 SC 10 and R. C. Samantha Vs. U.O.I., 1993 (3) SC 1418.
7. On merits they have submitted that Railway Hospital had asked applicant to come after 6 months after examining him, therefore, if applicant got his eye operated in a private hospital without being referred, he is not entitled to medical reimbursement. Para 648 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual allows reimbursement only in emergency cases thus applicants request could not be acceded to as it was not covered under the rules. The earlier order passed on 8.4.20089 in OA 727/2008 does not extend/condone the limitation in any way because that was dismissed as withdrawn at the time of admission itself. They have thus prayed that OA may be dismissed.
8. I have heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings. Admittedly, applicant had got his operation on 5.4.2003 and had raised the bill for reimbursement in 2003 itself. His claim was rejected on 1.1.2003 (page 9) on the following grounds:-
(1) Non-referred case went to non-recognised hospital in non-emergency condition.
(2) Facilities available in all Major Railway Hospital, i.e., Delhi Main Divisional Hospital & NRCH-NDLS.
His complaint against dealing clerk was also looked into and no truth was found in it, accordingly applicant was informed about it vide letter dated 10.12.2003 (page 10). His appeal was also rejected on 9.8.2004 and last order on his appeal was passed on 7.10.2004 whereby applicants claim was finally rejected by the Chief Health Director (page 12), therefore, cause of action at best could be extended in favour of applicant till 7.10.2004. Limitation period as prescribed under Section 21 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is one year from the date of cause of action so applicant ought to have filed O.A. within one year from the said date. Admittedly, no case was filed by the applicant. He filed Ist O.A. in the year 2008 which itself was barred by limitation. However, it was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh OA as relevant documents were not filed by the applicant (page 45).
9. This order, therefore, cannot be stated to have condoned the delay nor could it be treated, to have extended the limitation period because this aspect was not even looked into and order was passed at the threshold as relevant documents were not annexed by the applicant. Therefore, the present OA is definitely barred by limitation. Counsel for the applicant stated his limitation would start from the date when order was passed on 20.12.2007. However, this order was passed by the CPIO under RTI Act and in this letter also applicant was informed as follows:-
1. The applicant wants review of his medical reimbursement claims already rejected by the competent medical authorities under the RTI Act.
2. It is stated that what RTI Act provides is the information available with the department, it is not a channel/forum for redressal of grievances.
3. All due information has already been provided to the applicant. Thus, the appeal of the applicant is disposed as without any merit under the RTI Act.
Therefore, this order does not give any fresh cause of action to the applicant as he was only informed that his case of medical reimbursement has already been rejected, one cannot get redressal of grievance but only an information under the RTI Act.
10. Counsel for the applicant then contended that delay was condoned in the case of his wife in OA No. 750/2008 decided on 11.11.2008 and his OA No. 324/2008 was also allowed, therefore, delay may be condoned in this case also. It goes without saying that each case has to be decided as per the facts, therefore, simply because delay was condoned in the case of claim sought for his wifes operation, it cannot be stated that delay should be condoned in this case also.
11. Perusal of the judgment in O.A. No. 750/2008 decided on 11.1.2008 shows in the said case, it was clearly mentioned that applicants wife had to be operated in emergency due to retina detachment. Moreover, treatment for Retina detachment was stated to be not available in Railway Hospital. It was in those circumstances that delay was condoned and OA was allowed.
12. Similarly OA No. 324/2008 was disposed off with a direction that in case applicant produces emergent certificate from Shroff Eye Centre, his claim shall be considered.
13. It is thus clear that emergency had to be established, for getting the relief. In the instant case applicant has not annexed any certificate to show that his operation was done in emergency. Counsel for the applicant relied on prescription of Dr. Muhkerjee wherein Phaco was advised to be done immediately on 27.3.2003. However, thereafter when applicant went to the Railway Hospital, Eye Specialist found it was a case of early cataract on 31.3.2003, therefore, he had called the applicant for review after 6 months after giving some medicines for 2 weeks (page 16). Applicant ignored the advice of Railway Hospital and got the operation done at Dr. Mukherjee Eye Clinic. The very fact that Railway doctor had diagnosed it to be early cataract, it is clear there was no emergency. Moreover, the claim of applicant could have been considered, if he had shown the emergency certificate by Dr. Mukherjee, but in spite of specific question, counsel for the applicant could not show any emergency certificate. It is thus clear that applicant was not operated in any emergency otherwise Dr. Mukherjee would have issued either emergency certificate or stated so in the discharge slip.
14. In these circumstances, I do not think applicant has made out a case for medical reimbursement. Moreover, in application for condonation also no sufficient cause has been shown for the delay.
15. After all filing of an application for condonation of delay can be condoned only if sufficient cause is shown. In the instant case all that applicant has stated in the application for condonation of delay is as follows:-
1. That full facts and circumstances have been stated and explained in the OA, and the same form part of this MA. The petitioner craves the favour of this Honble Tribunal to allow the petitioner to rely and refer the same at the time of hearing the present MA.
2. That the delay so caused in approaching Honble Tribunal is not deliberate or to gain undue advantage, the delay if any in filing the present OA deserves to be condoned.
16. In view of above, this OA is dismissed on the ground of limitation and merit both. No costs.
(MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER) MEMBER (J) Rakesh