Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
N.K. Khandelwal vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 April, 2018
Bench: Chief Justice, Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 962 / 2014
N.K. Khandelwal
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Ors.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(self) : Mr. N.K. Khandelwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kamal Dave.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment 06/04/2018
1. Heard the writ petitioner who appears in person and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The writ petitioner retired as Assistant Commercial Manager under the Railways on 30 th April, 1995. Due to aging his wife faced knee problem. She was under treatment at Railway Hospital Jodhpur. On 18.12.2010 the Chief Medical Superintendent of the Railway Hospital at Jodhpur referred her to Jagjeewan Ram Railway Hospital at Mumbai for knee replacement. As pleaded by the petitioner he got his wife admitted at Jagjeewan Ram Railway Hospital at Mumbai on 22.12.2010 but found that the Orthopedic Surgeon who had to perform the surgery was on leave for two weeks. He got his wife discharged and took her to Shalby Hospital, Ahmedabad where his wife under went knee replacement. The Bill raised was in sum of ₹3,97,507/-. The petitioner sought (2 of 3) [CW-962/2014] reimbursement of the bill.
3. Informed that as per the applicable Rules of the Railways unless it was a case of emergency, a member of the Medical Scheme could not, either for himself or a dependent, avail treatment at a private Hospital and thus no reimbursement would be made; petitioner prayed to the authorities in the alternative that such sum which would be reimbursable as per CGHS rates of that city be paid to him. Even this was not paid.
4. The Petitioner proceeded before the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.123/2013 which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 17th January, 2014. The impugned order refers to the Railway Board Circulars as per which reimbursement for medical treatment availed at a private hospital can be made only in a case of emergency. Noting that it was not a case of emergency, the claim has been denied.
5. Railway Board Policy No.2005/H/6-4/Policy-II, dated 31.01.2007 has not been looked into by Tribunal. Vide clause II (para c) it is provided as under:
"(c) Treatment taken in a Recognized Private Hospital but for an ailment for which it is not recognized or treatment taken in a non-recognized Private Hospital, Reimbursement should be made at the CGHS rates of that city or nearest city CGHS (Central Government Health Scheme) approved rates are to be recommended/ processed as an upper limit for sanction. "
6. If only the Tribunal would have looked into the aforenoted policy it would have dawned that irrespective of the situation being critical or irrespective of there being no emergency, (3 of 3) [CW-962/2014] pertaining to treatment taken in a private non recognized hospital reimbursement at CGHS rate could have been made.
7. The alternative prayer of the petitioner was thus liable to be considered by the Tribunal in light of the aforenoted policy.
8. Thus, we dispose of the petition directing the respondent to reimburse the petitioner such amount as would be reimbursable as per CGHS rates.
9. Payment would be made within six weeks from today. If not made within six weeks the payment shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)CJ. Ashutosh