Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Smt. Bhoori Devi vs The Commissioner Mcd on 25 January, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A. No.415/2011 Tuesday, this the 25th day of January 2011 Honble Dr. K.B. Suresh, Member (J) Smt. Bhoori Devi w/o late Shri Har Prasad E-27, Budh Vihar, Phase I New Delhi-43 ..Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Gyanendra Singh) Versus 1. The Commissioner MCD Town Hall Chandni Chowk Delhi 2. Dy. Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi Sector 7, Rohini Zone New Delhi-85 ..Respondents O R D E R (ORAL)
Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.
2. The applicant seeks reimbursement of medical expenses relating to her husband, a cancer patient, who died during the treatment. On 28.8.2008, the employee of the respondents passed-away and apparently since he was only a Mali and the level of poverty and education being such, the applicant did not know that it was possible for her to get the medical expenses reimbursed. She would say that there is a delay of three months, which was later on condoned by the authorities but somehow or the other the matter is held up somewhere in the administrative hierarchy. It appears that the Paras Hospital where he was under treatment was not a panel hospital. Since the applicants husband treatment culminated in his death, there cannot be any further contention that it was of emergent nature. Therefore, going by the Apex Courts judgments, a rational and logical view is to be taken in relation to not being treated in a government hospital. The delay of three months in submitting the bills taken in the light of economic situation of the applicant and particularly so following the death of her husband is not a crucial factor, which is to be condoned and I hereby direct the respondents-authorities to actively consider the matter and pass an appropriate order within one month next. She shall be at liberty to contest the grant of amount to her, if she finds that she has not been adequately compensated but it is made clear that within ten days of passing such an order by the respondents, the amount as found due must be paid to the applicant whether she objects the quantum of amount or not.
3. The OA is allowed to the extent noted above.
( Dr. K.B. Suresh ) Member (Judicial) /sunil/