Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.9.2003 by which the claim of the petitioner to reimburse the medical bill incurred in course of treatment of her son for undergoing Cochlear implantation at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi has been rejected.

2. The submission has been made on behalf the petitioner that the son of petitioner was suffering from total loss of hearing. After consulting the doctor of the hospital of the management the medical superintendent vide order dated 14.10.2003 had referred the case of the petitioner for specialized treatment at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. For that purpose, the petitioner was also allowed a sum of Rs. 2000/- by way of advance but the same was never withdrawn by the petitioner.

3. The Management of AIMS had furnished an estimate of Rs. 5.20 Lakhs likely to be incurred in undergoing Cochlear implantation. Thereafter, son of petitioner underwent on operation of Cochlear implantation in December, 2003 and for that petitioner had deposited Rs. 5.20 Lakhs with the management of AIMS. In the month of December, 2003 the petitioner thereafter made an application for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred but the same has been rejected vide order dated 10.9.2003.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- Eastern Coal Field Limited has filed counter-affidavit, wherein it has been stated that as per the definition of treatment given in the Eastern Coal Field Limited, it does not include Cochlear Implantation. It has further been submitted that on perusal of the letter dated 5.3.2002 it is evident that no such type of case has been referred for treatment by the authority and there is nothing regarding such treatment in the CIL MAT Rules as such the management has taken decision regarding non- reimbursement of the expenditure incurred in the medical treatment of son of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the case of the petitioner has been considered by the competent authority and the claim of the petitioner was found not in accordance with CIL MAT Rules. Therefore the claim of the petitioner has been rejected.

6. After hearing the parties at length, the petitioner's son however has been treated at the AIIMS and certain amount has been incurred in the treatment of her son. From perusal of the statement made by the respondent-Management in the counter-affidavit and as per the definition of treatment which does not include Cochlear Implantation and as such the claim of the petitioner has been rejected.

7. Since there is no provision of medical reimbursement on the treatment of the deceased employee from which the son of the petitioner was suffering, hence no such direction can be issued in this regard in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 because the power under Article 226 can only be invoked for the vested legal right.