Delhi District Court
Sh. A. T. Mathew vs Union Of India on 12 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. TARUN YOGESH
SCJCUMRC (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS No : 1789/06
New CIS No: 97673/16
1. Sh. A. T. Mathew,
S/o Sh. A. M. Thomas,
R/o MIG Flat No. 6, Pocket F25,
Sector3, Rohini,
Delhi85. .........Plaintiff.
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Northern Railway,
Baroda House,
New Delhi.
(Service be effected through the General Manager Northern
Railway)
2. The Chairman,
Railway Board,
Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi. ..... Defendants.
Date of institution of case : 13.11.2006
Date of which judgment was reserved : 11.01.2017
Date on which judgment was pronounced : 12.01.2017
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff Sh. A. T. Mathew has filed suit for recovery of Rs. 2,12,857/ alongwith interest @ 12% per annum and cost against defendants (i) Union of India and (ii) Chairman, Railway Board. 1.1 Plaintiff's case gleaned from plaint reveals that plaintiff being retired employee of Central Railway is entitled to free medical facility alongwith his family and has been issued RELHS card no. 08885 dated 12.09.1994 by DRM, Central Railway, Bhopal.
Sh. A. T. Mathew Vs. Union of India & Anr. Page 1 of 61.2 He has averred that his wife Mrs. Aleyamma Mathew had suffered severe heart attack who was shifted to a private hospital in a very critical condition on 31.03.2005 instead of approaching the railway hospital and was admitted in ICCU of Kukreja Heart Centre, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi as her heart beats were recorded below normal at around 2.00 AM on 01.04.2005. Under such harrowing circumstances, plaintiff had to rush to nonrailway hospital for emergency treatment as he could not lose his wife by approaching nominated railway dispensary located far away from Janak Puri, New Delhi.
1.3 Plaintiff's wife remained admitted at Kukreja Heart Hospital, Delhi for 10 days and a sum of Rs. 1,78,876/ was incurred upon her treatment. Plaintiff, thereafter, filed his claim alongwith required documents including treatment record and bills in the office of Chief Medical Superintendent, Northern Railway, Divisional Hospital, S. P. Mukherjee Marg, Delhi on 22.09.2005 for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred upon treatment of his wife. His claim was however not considered by the department despite various representations and reminders in writing. Finally, he was constrained to issue notice dated 18.07.2006 which was served upon Chief Medical Superintendent, Northern Railway, Divisional Hospital, S. P. Mukherjee Marg, Delhi on 20.07.2006 calling upon for payment of Rs. 1,78,876/ towards reimbursement of medical expenses but in vain as defendant issued reply vide letter dated 27.04.2006 for informing that plaintiff's claim could not be processed on account of not informing the concerned authorized Medical Officer.
1.4 Plaintiff has referred to rules applicable to RELHS card holders asserting his claim for reimbursement of Rs. 1,78,876/ towards medical expenses and for alleging about illegal withholding of amount by defendant without any justifiable cause for seeking recovery of Rs.
Sh. A. T. Mathew Vs. Union of India & Anr. Page 2 of 633,981/ as accumulated interest @ 12% per annum and has filed his suit for recovery of Rs. 2,12,857/ in court on 13.11.2006 after expiry of two months of statutory notice dated 24.04.2006 under section 80 CPC.
2. Summons of suit was served upon defendants who have filed their joint written statement assailing plaintiff's suit on the ground of nonjoinder and misjoinder of parties and by disputing cause of action and service of statutory notice under section 80 CPC. 2.1 Plaintiff's averments on merits were also disputed by defendants in corresponding paras of their written statement by adverting to copy of reply (letters) annexed as Annexure A to Annexure F for pointing out objections and disparity detected in proposal (claim) for reimbursement at the time of scrutiny at Head Quarter Office at Baroda House, Delhi.
3. Plaintiff Sh. A. T. Mathew has filed his replication disputing defendant's averments and following issues were settled on 29.09.2008 on the basis of their pleadings after plaintiff had received Rs. 1,20,000/ from defendants through cheque against medical claim : (1) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of the preliminary objection no.1? OPP.
(2) Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder or misjoinder as claimed in preliminary objection no. 3? OPD.
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reimbursement of the medical expenses to the tune of Rs.58,876/ alongwith interest, if so, at what rate after receiving sum of Rs. 1,20,000/ from the defendants by way of cheque? OPP.
(4) Relief.
4. Perusal of judicial record discloses that Dr. Ram Aggarwal, General Manager, Kukreja Hospital, Rajouri Garden (Vishal Enclave) Sh. A. T. Mathew Vs. Union of India & Anr. Page 3 of 6 Delhi has been examined by plaintiff as PW1 and his examinationin chief and crossexamination were recorded on 05.02.2009.
5. No other witness was examined by plaintiff despite matter being listed for remaining plaintiff's evidence since 17.08.2009. Subsequently, an application under Order XXII Rule 3 read with section 151 CPC and section 5 of Limitation Act was filed by LRs of plaintiff late A. T. Mathew which has been allowed subject to cost of Rs.1,500/ vide order dated 07.10.2013 and matter was again listed for entire PE. However, no witness has been examined by his LRs from 10.12.2013 till 22.12.2015 when plaintiff's evidence was finally closed.
6. Defendants on the other hand have examined Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Chief Office, Superintendent, CMS, Delhi as DW1.
7. His examinationinchief has been recorded on solemn affirmation (SA) on 14.09.2016 wherein he has deposed to be working as COS and engaged in checking reimbursement bills of the employees. He has testified about payment of Rs.1,20,000/ sanctioned by CMD, Baroda House, New Delhi which money was paid to plaintiff on 19.09.2008. Copy of sanction order dated 19.10.2007 has been referred as Ex. DW1/A and copies of letters dated 03.03.2007, 19.10.2007 and 29.09.2006 addressed to plaintiff have been referred as Ex. DW1/B to Ex. DW1/D. DW1 has also referred to copy of Joint Procedure Order (CMD, FA & CAO & AGM) regarding procedure for disposal of cases of Reimbursement of Medical expenses approved by General Manager / Northern Railway and defendant's reply to legal notice dated 11.09.2006 as Ex. DW1/E and Ex. DW1/F. Testimony of DW1 has remained unassailed as plaintiff / LRs have continuously remained absent since 29.10.2015.
8. Plaintiff/LRs and their counsel Advocate Sh. Ashok Popli have failed to address their submissions / final arguments.
Sh. A. T. Mathew Vs. Union of India & Anr. Page 4 of 69. Advocate Sh. Naval Singh for defendants no. 1 and 2 on the other hand has addressed his submissions by adverting to ordersheet dated 29.09.2008 for asserting about payment of Rs.1,20,000/ to plaintiff against medical claim as per rules for reimbursement of Medical Bills.
10. My issuewise finding on the basis of testimonies of witnesses examined by parties on judicial file are recorded below:
11. Issue no. 3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reimbursement of the medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 58,876/ alongwith interest, if so, at what rate after receiving sum of Rs. 1,20,000/ from the defendants by way of cheque? OPP. 11.1 Onus to prove the issue viz. plaintiff's claim for reimbursement of medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 58,876/ along with interest lies upon the plaintiff. However, no witness other than Dr. Ram Aggarwal (PW1) has been examined on judicial record. PW1 being formal witness has brought treatment record of Mrs. Aleyamma Mathew and referred to photocopies of medical record bearing page no. 1 to page no. 35 as Ex. PW1/1 (OSR). He was crossexamined by ld. counsel for defendant wherein he has admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the case.
11.2 Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Chief Office, Superintendent, CMS, Delhi (DW1) on the other hand has deposed about sanction order dated 19.10.2007 for payment of Rs. 1,20,000/ towards reimbursement of medical claim and has referred to copy of Joint Procedure Order (CMD, FA & CAO & AGM) regarding procedure for disposal of cases of Reimbursement of medical expenses approved by General Manager / Northern Railway as Ex. DW1/E for asserting about payment of Rs.1,20,000/ which was approved as per rules.
Sh. A. T. Mathew Vs. Union of India & Anr. Page 5 of 6FINDING: Since no other witness has been examined by plaintiff / LRs in support of their claim for additional amount of Rs. 58,876/ after receiving Rs. 1,20,000/ from defendant through cheque whereas defendants have asserted about payment of Rs. 1,20,000/ which was approved by Railway Board for reimbursement of medical bills, so, plaintiff / LRs are not entitled to claim additional sum of Rs. 58,879/ along with interest in the absence of any evidence in support of their entitlement.
12. Issues No.1 and 2 regarding maintainability of plaintiff's suit and defendant's plea about nonjoinder and misjoinder of parties being profuse (redundant) do not require to be adjudicated.
13. Relief: Plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 2,12,857/ alongwith interest @ 12% per annum and cost is dismissed on the basis of my finding upon issue no.3 as plaintiff is not entitled to seek further amount of Rs. 58,876/ along with interest after receiving Rs. 1,20,000/ from defendant towards reimbursement of medical bills. Parties to bear their own costs.
Decree sheet be prepared.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (Tarun Yogesh)
Dated 12th January, 2017 SCJCumRC (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts Delhi
Sh. A. T. Mathew Vs. Union of India & Anr. Page 6 of 6