Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Relevant facts, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties to the lis, are that son of the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? petitioner, who was born on 22.05.2019, was found to be suffering with hearing problem and as such, on 28.09.2021, petitioner, who is working as Senior Assistant in the Health Department, took him to PGI, Chandigarh for checkup. On 10.05.2022, Doctors attending upon the son of the petitioner at PGI, Chandigarh, recommended for Cochlear implantation. On 11.05.2022, Medical Board of PGI, Chandigarh gave estimate certificate for Cochlear implantation (Annexure P-1). Vide aforesaid estimate, petitioner herein came to be apprised that approximate expenditure involved in surgical procedure/ treatment of his son is Rs. 16, 27,500/-( Rs. 16,27,500/- for Cochlear Nucleus Kanso-2(LP1150) with profile plus electrode array and Rs. 50,000/- for hospital charges and medicines). After receipt of aforesaid estimate from PGI, Chandigarh, petitioner made representation to the Chief Medical Officer, District Sirmour at Nahan for sanction of estimated amount of Rs. 16, 77,500/- as advance for treatment on sympathetic grounds. Chief Medical Officer, Sirmour at Nahan vide communication dated 26.05.2022 forwarded the representation filed by the petitioner to Director Health Services, Himachal Pradesh (Annexures P-2 colly). After receipt of sanction from the Office of Director Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, Chief Medical Officer, Sirmour at Nahan vide communication dated 30.06.2022(Annexure P-3) deposited sum of Rs. 12,20,625/- in the account of PGIMR, Chandigarh towards the partial cost of the treatment. On 02.07.2022, petitioner also deposited remaining sum of Rs. 4, 06, 875/- in PGI, Chandigarh to avoid further delay in Cochlear implant of his son. On 26.12.2022, petitioner submitted his aforesaid bill for reimbursement to the Department, but no payment was made. Subsequently, vide communication dated 06.02.2023 Director Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, directed Chief Medical Officer, Sirmour at Nahan to restrict the rate(s) as per CGHS rates as per Government Notification. It also came to be ordered vide aforesaid communication that over and above payment be deposited in the Government Treasury through e-challan. Vide communication dated 9.3.2023 (Annexure P-5), petitioner made a representation to Director, Heath and Family Welfare Department, Himachal Pradesh, stating therein that he is not in a position to deposit the amount and as such, case of the petitioner may be taken up with the Government sympathetically for special sanction keeping in view the poor financial condition. However, vide communication dated 3.5.2023 (Annexure P-6), Director Health Services, Himachal Pradesh informed Chief Medical Officer Sirmour at Nahan that Government has notified a policy vide notification No. HFW-B(F)1-1/2008 dated 21.06.2008. Point 9.8 of the said policy reads as under:-

5. To the contrary, Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General, while refuting the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that petitioner, who is an employee of Health Department, cannot be permitted to claim that he was not aware to Rules in vogue framed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh for reimbursement. While referring to the reply filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on the affidavit of Director Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, learned Advocate General stated that State Government vide Notification dated 25.09.2020 and Office Memorandum dated 12.06.2009 (Annexures R-1 & R-II) has laid down definite procedure for reimbursement of cochlear implant surgery to Government employees/pensioners with further specific mention that the Director Medical Education and Research, Himachal Pradesh shall issue approval for reimbursement of the charges of the cochlear implant surgery, subject to the capping prescribed as per CGHS Rules. He submitted that since as per CGHS Rules, no amount more than Rs. 5, 35,000/- could have been sanctioned for Cochlear implant, impugned action of the respondents inasmuch as ordering recovery of excess amount paid over and above aforesaid prescribed limit is wholly justifiable. While refuting submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to application of judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rafiq Masih case (supra), learned Advocate General inviting attention of this Court to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal & others vs. State of Uttarakhand, Civil Appeal No.5899 of 2012, decided on 17.08.2012, to state that any amount received/paid without authority of law, can be recovered, barring few exceptions of extreme hardships, but not as a matter of right. He submitted that since in the case at hand, it stands established that petitioner was not entitled to the amount, which he erroneously received on account of inadvertent sanction issued by the competent authority i.e. Director Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, he is liable to refund the amount. He further submitted that by no stretch of imagination case of the petitioner falls in the category of extreme hardship. He submitted that petitioner being Senior Assistant working in the Health Department is in receipt of handsome salary. He submitted that impugned recovery notice itself suggests that amount, sought to be recovered, if not already deposited within a period of fifteen days, shall be recovered from the salary of the petitioner by way of installments. He submitted that in case amount is permitted to be recovered by way of installments from the salary of the petitioner, who is otherwise left with 10 years' service, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner. He submitted that once it is ample clear from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record that petitioner being employee of Health Department succeeded in getting undue favour from the higher-ups working at the relevant time, coupled with the fact that no amount over and above Rs. 5,35,000/- could have been sanctioned, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner to waive off the amount allegedly received over and above prescribed limit cannot be accepted, rather such order, if any, may set bad precedent.

10. Admittedly, no amount over and above Rs. 5, 35,000/- could have been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner for Cochlear implant of his son, but as has been taken note hereinabove, the then Chief Medical Officer Sirmour at Nahan taking note of representation dated 26.05.2022 (Annexure P-2 colly), recommended his case to Director Health Services, Himachal Pradesh vide communication dated 26.5.2022, who further taking note of urgency in the matter sanctioned the amount and authorized Chief Medical Officer, Sirmour to deposit such amount with PGI, Chandigarh, which ultimately came to be deposited through e-viteran. Since, there is no dispute interse parties that no amount over and above Rs. 5, 35,000/- could have been sanctioned, there appears to be no justification for this Court to take note of Rules occupying the field, however for clarification, it may be noticed that Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare vide its office memorandum dated 12.06.2009, issued guidelines regarding reimbursement of the cost of Cochlear implant to the beneficiaries under CGHS/Central Services ( Medical Attendance) Rule 1944, thereby it came to be conveyed to permit the beneficiaries under CGHS and Central Services ( Medical Attendance) Rule 1944 to undergo Cochlear Implant surgery as per the guidelines laid down in the matter. Importantly, in afore above guidelines ceiling rate for cochlear implant has been specified as Rs. 5, 35,000/- for reimbursement of cost of cochlear implant with 12 channel/24 electrode with behind the ear speech processor (Annexure R-1). State Government vide notification dated 25.09.2020 also laid down the procedure for reimbursement of cochlear implant surgery to Government employees/pensioners with further specific mention that the Director Medical Education and Research, Himachal Pradesh shall issue approval for reimbursement of the charges of the cochlear implant surgery, subject to the capping prescribed as per CGHS Rules (Annexure R-2).

11. Initially as per proposal received from respondent No.3 (Annexure P-2) on the basis of representation of the petitioner alongwith treatment estimate certificate amounting to Rs. 16, 77,500/- (Annexure P-1) on account of treatment of his son on sympathetic grounds, 75% budget of the estimated cost stood provided as advance in favour of the petitioner by Director Health Services for treatment of his son vide letter dated 4.6.2022(Annexure R-3). Since subsequent to sanction of aforesaid amount, petitioner herein, who had deposited remaining sum of Rs.4,06,875/- on 2.7.2022, submitted bills for reimbursement, matter again came to be discussed by successor of the then Chief Medical Officer, who found that no amount over and above Rs. 5, 35,000/- otherwise could have been sanctioned in total for cochlear implant. Bill for medical reimbursement submitted by the petitioner amounting to Rs.16, 77,500/- to respondent No.3 came to be examined in the office of Director Health Services, Himachal Pradesh in light of instructions issued by Government of India regarding ceiling of CGHS rates for cochlear implant, whereafter it was conveyed to restrict the rates as pre CGHS rates in view of notification dated 6.02.2023 (Annexure P-4). Copy of policy dated 21.06.2008 framed for granting recognition/empanelment to private hospitals/health institutions/ diagnostic labs within and outside the State both in private and Government sectors for treatment and reimbursement of the expenses to the government employees/their dependents and pensioners as per Annexure R-5, clearly reveals that in case there is no PGIMER Chandigarh/AIIMS rates, the reimbursement shall be subject to CGHS rates or actual rates whichever is lower. Since there were no rates for cochlear implants Kanso-2 Unilateral system available on the officials website of PGI, Chandigarh and AIIMS Delhi, the reimbursement were decided to be restricted to the CGHS rate with further direction to the petitioner to deposit the excess amount of Rs. 6,53,929/- in the Government Treasury vide notice dated 04.07.2023 (Annexure P-7).