Karnataka High Court
Sri.K.Mahendra Singh vs The Union Of India on 31 July, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:26586
WP No. 12479 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 12479 OF 2017 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. K. MAHENDRA SINGH,
S/O LATE. K. MANOHAR SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. TYPE-11,
Q.R.NO. 335, GC-C.R.P.F. CAMPUS,
YELAHANKA, BANGALORE - 560 064.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BALAJI RAGHUNATHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
NORTH BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
Digitally
signed by 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
SUMA
DIRECTORATE GENERAL, C.R.P.F.,
Location:
HIGH LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
COURT OF ...RESPONDENTS
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. SHANTHI BHUSHAN H., ADVOCATE
FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- QUASH
ANNEXURE-P DTD 30.8.12 ISSUED BY R2 AND
CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REIMBURSE
/ PAY OF RS.3,00,000/- (RUPEES THREE LAKHS ONLY) TO
THIS PETITIONER TOWARDS THE MEDICAL EXPENSES
INCURRED UPON BY HIM FOR THE TREATMENT OF HIS SON
AND ETC.,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:26586
WP No. 12479 of 2017
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to reimburse Rs.3,00,000/- to the petitioner being the expenses incurred by him for the treatment of his son. He also sought for the direction to the respondents to pay interest at 15% p.a. on Rs.3,00,000/- from 15.06.2007, till the date of payment.
2. The petitioner claimed that, he was serving the Central Reserve Police Force for the last 25 years and at the time of filing the writ petition, he was a Head Constable in General Duty at Unit at 91st Battalion.
3. The petitioner claims that, his son was born in the year 2004 and was diagnosed as suffering from bilateral severe hearing loss. As a result, he approached the Chief Medical Officer, Composite Hospital at Hyderabad on 18.06.2006. After initial checkup, the Composite Hospital, Hyderabad referred the petitioner's son to Nizam Institute of -3- NC: 2023:KHC:26586 WP No. 12479 of 2017 Medical sciences, as there were no ENT specialists at Composite Hospital, Hyderabad. The file was returned back with a clinical note. Thereafter, the son of the petitioner was referred to Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru. Where he was advised to get an audiology report of his son from Dr.S.R.Chandrashekar, Institute of speech and hearing.
4. After obtaining an audiology report, the petitioner went back to Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru from where he was referred to Apollo Hospital, Bengaluru, since, it was diagnosed that the child needed cochlear implants and the facility was not available at Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru. The recommendation made by Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru was endorsed by Dr.A.K.Satpati, who was the Medical Superintendent, 50 BH Bengaluru, C.R.P.F. Accordingly, as per the recommendation, the petitioner approached his group centre with the reference and approval by Dr.A.K.Satpati, D.I.G.P. The petitioner was informed that a sum of Rs.11,50,000/- would be the approximate cost of operation and a letter in that regard was addressed by the attending doctor at Apollo Hospital to the Commandant 46th -4- NC: 2023:KHC:26586 WP No. 12479 of 2017 Battalion C.R.P.F. However, there was no reply by the Commandant, 46th Battalion.
5. The attending doctor at Apollo Hospital advised the petitioner not to wait and arrange for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as the hospital had agreed to waive off the remaining from its trust. Accordingly, the petitioner is stated to have deposited a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as per the final bill and the son of the petitioner was operated upon. Even after the petitioner submitting the entire final bill to his Commandant for reimbursement, however, he did not receive any response which prompted the petitioner to issue continued representations.
6. Later, the respondent No.2 in terms of the letter dated 30.08.2012 rejected the reimbursement on the ground that, the Standing Committee Constituted for the purpose had not approved and recommended the reimbursement of expenses incurred for cochlear implant surgery. It is this order which is challenged in this writ petition. -5-
NC: 2023:KHC:26586 WP No. 12479 of 2017
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner did not bring his son for treatment outside the Composite Hospital, Hyderabad, but it was the latter which initially referred the petitioner's son to Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences and thereafter to Victoria Hospital and then to Apollo Hospital. The reference made by Apollo Hospital was agreed by Dr.A.K.Satpati, Karnataka Group Centre, C.R.P.F Hospital Yelahanka. Thus, he contend that the petitioner was entitled for reimbursement of amount spent for the treatment of his son.
8. Per contra, the learned Deputy Solicitor General representing the respondents submits that, the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family welfare has issued a office memorandum dated 12.06.2009 framing guidelines for cochlear implant surgery. He submits that, a Standing Committee is constituted which has to approve and recommend the reimbursement of expenses of the surgery. Unless the committee recommends, the respondents are not in a position to reimburse the expenses.
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC:26586 WP No. 12479 of 2017
9. He further submits that, the petitioner was earlier serving at 47th Battalion and was thereafter transferred to 91st Battalion. He submits that, though the request for reimbursement was returned to the petitioner for furnishing it before the 91st Battalion, he did not take any steps to do so. Therefore, entire records furnished by the petitioner has been weeded out and the respondents are not in a position to consider the request of the petitioner.
10. The fact that the petitioner has been serving in force is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had taken his son to the Composite Hospital, Hyderabad for examination by a ENT Specialist, since the child was neither able to speak nor hear. However, there were no ENT specialist at Composite Hospital, Hyderabad and therefore was referred to Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences, from where, he was referred to Victoria Hospital Bengaluru. At Victoria Hospital, he was referred to Apollo Hospital for a cochlear implant surgery. This reference was approved by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, C.R.P.F Hospital, Yelahanka, Bengaluru. It is only -7- NC: 2023:KHC:26586 WP No. 12479 of 2017 thereafter, steps were taken for the surgery of the child. If the petitioner had spent a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for the surgery of the child, he is entitled to be reimbursed. The contentions urged by the respondent that the Standing Committee had not approved and recommended the reimbursement is of no consequences, as the petitioner did not take the child directly to Appollo Hospital, but was due to chain of reference that the child had to be treated at Apollo hospital, Bengaluru.
11. In that view of the matter, the contentions urged by the respondents do not hold any water and they are bound to be directed to reimburse the expenses incurred by the petitioner at the earliest. However, since the learned Deputy Solicitor General now claims that the respondents are not in possession of the documents furnished by the petitioner, it is appropriate to direct the petitioner to furnish a copy of the documents earlier furnished to the respondents for immediate and necessary action.
-8-
NC: 2023:KHC:26586 WP No. 12479 of 2017
12. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed and the respondent No.2 is directed to reimburse the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner, subject to the petitioner producing all material proof in that regard before respondent No.2 within a period of 15 days from today.
12.1. Respondent No.2 shall consider and take appropriate steps to reimburse all the expenses incurred by the petitioner within one month thereafter.
12.2. If respondent No.2 fails to pass appropriate orders within one month, the respondent No.2 shall pay interest at rate of 12% per annum from the 45th day, and the interest that may be paid by respondent No.2 shall be recovered from the concerned official who may be responsible for the delay.
In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances this case, this order shall not be treated as a precedent.
Sd/-
JUDGE PK,HJ CT: ABS