Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The respondents have expressed their inability to deny or admit the contents about the disability suffered by the son of the petitioner and requires of him to prove this. Otherwise, the respondents would deny the applicability of the circular issued by State Bank of India, which, as per them would have no applicability to the employees of the State Bank of Patiala. To substantiate their submissions, the respondents would also deny the aspect of reimbursement by the Branch of a Bank as relied upon by the petitioner. It is pointed out that only advance for medical treatment was granted but no payment was made to the employee on account of Cochlear implant. As per the respondent-Bank, the case of the petitioner is not covered by any circular/instructions issued by State Bank of Patiala under which the medical bill of Cochlear implant surgery could be reimbursed.

The petitioner has filed a replication and has placed on record the certificate issued by Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital showing 100% disability of the son of the petitioner to substantiate his plea. Reference is made to Annexure P-1 to show that the matter was examined IBA Level where it was decided that the cost of implanted items wherever they are provided by the hospital under the package may be considered at the rate mentioned in Annexure P-1. To rebut the averments made in the reply that only advance was made in the case cited by the petitioner, the petitioner has placed on record Annexure P-22 where the payment against the bill for Cochlear implant was approved. The petitioner would also make reference to the action taken by the respondent-Bank to approach the S.B.I.Corporate Centre at Mumbai for advice. It is emphasized and reiterated that the branches of the respondent-Bank had reimbursed the expenses for Cochlear implant in other cases on the basis of circular issued by the State Bank of India.

The aim of the scheme of the Bank is to reimburse the cost of treatment. What nexus the disease would have with the aspect of reimbursement is really not made out. No wonder, the State Bank of India has clearly made a provision while standarilising the medical charges by issuing guidelines which are placed on record as Annexure P-2. In consultation with the Senior Medical officer at the office of S.B.I., the Bank has prepared a schedule of standard charges. Annexure B is containing charges for surgical operation, where Cochlear implant surgery is mentioned as one of the surgeries for which reimbursement would be permissible. The petitioner is rightly making a grievance that he was given advance after due application of mind and now his claim has been rejected in hurry to meet the time stipulation provided by the Chief Commissioner for Disability without even awaiting for response from the S.B.I.Corporate Office at Mumbai. The Bank has declined the prayer of the petitioner primarily on the ground that reimbursement of expenses on account of Cochlear implant surgery does not fall within the ambit of Bank's scheme for reimbursement of hospitalization expenses and expenditure.

In my view, the petitioner has made a case for reimbursement of the entire expenses incurred by him for Cochlear implant surgery performed on his son. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order 9.12.2008 is set-aside. Direction is issued to the respondent-Bank to reimburse the cost of medical expenses incurred by the petitioner for getting his son treated for Cochlear implant surgery. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.