Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(b)It is on record from discharge certificate dated 26 Dec 2000 that the appellant was treated from 02 Mar 2000 to 04 Mar 2000 and was discharged against medical advice of Government General Hospital, Madras. However, in the circumstances, the contention of the appellant has been considered and on consideration of his injury and subsequent admission into various hospitals has been taken into view while issuing the sanction by HQENC vide their sanction letter No.CE/0886/Med dated 22 Jun 01. The appellant subsequently filed O.A.891/01. In deference to the directions of the Honourable Tribunal by their order dt. 15/03/02 in O.A.No.891/01, the medical claim of the appellant was carefully considered by NHQ in consultation with Ministry of Health and allowed additional reimbursement against the original claim passed for Rs.47,925/-. The Ministry of Health has approved relaxation of CSMA Rules to additionally reimburse Rs.32,915/- against the medical claim of the appellant as a special case. The amount has since been paid and the appellant has also acknowledged the receipt vide his representation dated 14 Dec 04. In compliance to the directions of the Honourable Tribunal the 2nd Respondent in OA referred the case to the 1st Respondent therein, i.e. NHQ. NHQ in turn referred the matter to the Ministry of health and Family Welfare, who are the nodal Ministry in the subject matter. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has carefully considered the claim and has felt that the reimbursement as admissible under the rules has already been allowed. However, if the individual desires any specific relaxation, he may specify the extent and the nature of relaxation on any specific item and not in general. The decision of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare was communicated to Sri.C.Ganesh. In pursuance to the above intimation, Shri Ganesh preferred a representation dated 14 Oct 2002. He has brought a statement of entitlement vis-a-vis discriminated amount passed by the audit authorities on the claim. The subsequent representation of the appellant dated 27 Oct 2003 requesting for medical reimbursement of Rs.76,331/- along with enclosures have been forwarded to NHQ. NHQ considering the representation of the appellant has disposed it of with the observation that The Honourable Tribunal vide their order dated 15 Mar 02 has directed to reexamination of the medical reimbursement claim of Rs.1,42,494/- and to allow reimbursement on a realistic basis. In pursuance to the direction the reimbursement claim was reexamined in consultation of MOH and Rs.32,915/- was additionally reimbursed based on relaxation of rules as approved by MOH. With additional reimbursement of Rs.32,915/- the directions of tribunal in OA.891/01 stand complied as evidenced by order of the Hon'ble Tribunal Judgment in CA.19/2003. As regards the claim related to 19,661/- pertaining to post accidental implant removal operation the office of AAO, Chennai, has observed that the claim has been restricted as per the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare letter No.S/11011/16/94-CGHS-DSK-II/CMO(D/CGHS (P) dated 10 Jun 97. The disallowance was mainly on account of medicines and the X-Ray and room rent which were restricted as per CGHS. Procedure charges, theatre charges and doctors rate were admitted as per the said Govt. letter dated 10 Jun 1997.

(iii & iv)The items which have been brought out at Para 7(b) of the representation have already been considered by NHQ in consultation with MOH and allowed additional reimbursement based on relaxation of the rules as approved by MOH and accordingly an additional reimbursement of Rs.32,915/- was paid to the appellant.

(v)The description and surgeries carried out was already been considered by NHQ, MOH while admitting amount of reimbursement.

(vi)The expenditure involved for medi-care charges and mortar charges are not under the financial powers of Respondents 3 to 5. The MOH, GOI considered the request of the appellant has allowed Rs.6,875/- in relaxation of CSMA Rules and paid to the appellant on 07 May 2003.

(g)The amount as admissible was allowed under CSMA rules and paid to the appellant. and rejected the Appeal filed by the Petitioner dated 11.03.2006 by observing that the reimbursement has been made as per rules and therefore, the request of the Petitioner praying for additional amount does not carry any merit.

23.In this connection, we pertinently worth recall the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Suman Rakheja v. State of Haryana and another, {(2004) 13 Supreme Court Cases 562}, at Page 562 and 563, wherein at Paragraph 4, 5 and 6, it is held as follows: