Delhi High Court
Deen Dayal Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 21 November, 2006
Author: J.M. Malik
Bench: J.M. Malik
JUDGMENT J.M. Malik, J.
1. The parties have locked horns over the question whether a pensioner's medical bills should be reimbursed even if he contributes and becomes member of the scheme after the treatment ? The petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2004. The petitioner suffered sudden severe heart attack on 11.07.2005. He was taken to Jaipur Golden Hospital, an approved one, immediately. He was treated and the above said hospital issued a bill in the sum of Rs. 1,29,360/-. The same was paid by the petitioner. The petitioner also incurred expenses on medicines in the sum of Rs. 2591.85. The total sum paid by the petitioner is Rs. 1,31,992/-. The petitioner became a member of CGHS scheme and was issued an identity card by the MCD for the treatment of the petitioner and his family under the monthly pension scheme on 27.07.2005. However, when he submitted the bills before the MCD, they refused to reimburse the same.
2. The respondent has hotly contested this writ petition. Learned Counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that the petitioner is not entitled to the above said reimbursement. She drew my attention towards few Circulars. Circular dated 22.11.2002 issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi Health Department reads:
Monthly contribution can be made by the pensioners/family pensioners out of his/her pension/family pension. In case pensioner/family pensioner wants to pay one time subscription, he/she may deposit necessary amount with the concerned Pension Disbursing Authority.
Paras 1, 3 and 5 of Circular dated 14.05.2003 are reproduced as follows:
1. Regarding contribution from Municipal pensioners/Family pensioners:
Pensioners will deposit lump sum contribution equivalent to their subscription for 5 years i.e. 60 months on the pattern of G.N.C.T.D. For family pensioners only yearly contribution will be received.
3. Pensioner/family pensioner will be entitled for this medical benefit after he/she opts for this and the medical claim will be admissible only after the date of depositing the necessary contribution.
5. Last date for joining the scheme for existing pensioner/family pensioner will be 30-6-2003.
In case of employees, who will retire in future, they should opt for the scheme within 3 months of retirement.
Circular dated 04.06.2004 further mentions as under:
(i) Extension of last date for joining the scheme by existing pensioners:
The last date for joining the scheme is hereby extended up to 31st October, 2004 and for wider publicity, advertisements may be also given in the newspapers of repute, to this effect.
Learned Counsel for the respondent pointed out that petitioner did not adhere to the above said directions, although, he retired on 31.12.2004, yet, he did not deposit the amount within three months after his retirement. The needful was done after the expiry of inordinate delay. Learned Counsel for the respondent pointed out that the authorities produced by the petitioner reported in Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. 1996 (1) SLR 789 etc. are not applicable to the facts of this case.
3. All these arguments have left no impression upon the Court. To my mind, there lies no rub to the claim of the petitioner even if the petitioner joins the scheme retrospectively. The Constitution commands justice, liberty, equality and fraternity as supreme values to usher in the egalitarian social, economic and political democracy. Social justice, equality and dignity of person are corner stones of social democracy. In a developing society like ours steeped with unbridgeable and ever widening gaps of unequality in status and of opportunity, law is catalyst rubicon to the poor etc. to reach the ladder of social justice. All these views neatly dovetail with the observations made in Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India , wherein it was held:
The expression 'life' assured in Article 21 of the Constitution does not connote mere animal existence or continued drudgery through life. It has a much wider meaning which includes right to livelihood, better standard of living, hygienic conditions in the workplace and leisure. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation this Court held that no person can live without the means of living i.e. means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content of meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live, leave aside what makes life liveable. The right to life with human dignity encompasses within its fold, some of the finer facets of human civilisation which makes life worth living. The expanded connotation of life would mean the tradition and cultural heritage of the persons concerned. In State of H.P. v. Umed Ram Sharma this Court held that the right to life includes the quality of life as understood in its richness and fullness by the ambit of the Constitution. Access to road was held to be an access to life itself in that State.
4. The observations made in State of Punjab and others v. Mahender Singh Chawla JT 1997 (1) SC 417, are also to the same effect.
5. The main authority, which applies to the facts of this case, to a hair, is reported in Government of N.C.T. of Delhi and Ors. v. Som Dutt Sharma wherein the respondent became a member of the scheme on 14.09.2000, he had undergone heart surgery on 25.03.2000, the benefit was extended to him.
6. In V.K. Jagdhari v. Union of India and Ors. , the application for card was made on 26.04.1999 and the petitioner paid Rs. 18,000/- for the said purpose. During November, 1998 he suffered high fever and developed medical complications. He was under the treatment of the medical practitioner in local government hospital. He underwent treatment from 25.11.1998 to 02.12.1998. He was advised open heart by-pass surgery. He remained in the hospital for more than two weeks between 17.12.1998 and 03.01.1999. He had to incur an expenditure of Rs. 3,13,452/-. The Court placed reliance upon the judgment reported in Union of India v. T.S. Oberoi (LPA No.898/2002) decided on 07.11.2003, wherein the Court had given clear findings that once life membership has been accepted for a CGHS card, it related back to the point in time when the beneficiary was hospitalized in time.
It was further held:
13. The position emerging from various decisions of this Court may be summarised as follows:
(1) Even if employee contributes after availing medical facilities, and becomes member of the scheme after treatment, he is entitled to reimbursement - Govt. of NCT v. S.S. Sharma 2005 (118) DLT 144 (DB).
(2) Even if membership under scheme not processed the retiree is entitled to benefits of Scheme - Mohinder Pal v. UOI 117 (2005) DLT 204.
(3) Full amounts incurred have to be paid by the employer; reimbursement of entire amount has to be made. It is for the Government and the hospital concerned to settle what is correct amount - Milap Sigh v. UOI ; Ran deep Kumar Rana v. UOI .
(4) The pensioner is entitled to full reimbursement so long the hospital remains in approved list P.N. Chopra v. UOI 111 (2004) DLT 190.
(5) The status is of retired employee and this leads to entitlement; the status is not as card holder - S.K. Sharma v. UOI .
(6) If medical treatment is availed, whether the employee is a card holder or not is irrelevant and full reimbursement has to be given, B.R. Mehta v. UOI .
6. Recent authorities reported in Prem Sagar Sharma v. GNCT of Delhi WP(C) 17152/2005 decided on October 31, 2006 and Promlesh Bhatnagar v. Employees State Insurance Corporation and Anr. go to embolden the petitioner's case.
7. Under these circumstances, I hereby accept the writ petition and direct the respondent to reimburse the medical bills of the petitioner within a month from today.