Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: csma rules in Sushil Kumar Gupta vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi, Govt. ... on 17 November, 2016Matching Fragments
(c ) Direct the Respondent to pay the Applicant the cost and expenses of this Application.
(d) Issue any other Order/Direction as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case."
2. In its counter reply, the respondent has stated, inter alia, that the medical expenditure of Rs.2,67,015/- has been reimbursed to the applicant's mother in accordance with the CGHS/CSMA Rules, and the balance amount, as claimed by the applicant in the present O.A., is not admissible as per rules.
7. It was not the claim of the applicant's mother that the balance amount of Rs.40,538/- was reimbursable to her under the CGHS/CSMA Rules. Her grievance was that despite the Emergency Certificate issued by the Fortis Hospital, the respondent did not issue Cashless Treatment Slip for her treatment, and as a consequence, the Fortis Hospital refused to charge the MCD package rate for her medical treatment, and forced her to pay the medical bills. Therefore, the respondent is liable to reimburse the said balance amount of Rs.40,538/- in her favour.
12. In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I do not find any illegality or irregularity to have been committed by the respondent in reimbursing to the applicant's mother Rs.2,67,015/- only in accordance with the CGHS/CSMA Rules, and in disallowing reimbursement of Rs.40,538/- which was not admissible under the CGHS/CSMA Rules.
13. When claim for reimbursement of expenses for outdoor medical treatment has not yet been raised either by the applicant's mother or by the applicant before the respondent, it would be too premature for the applicant to file this O.A. seeking a direction to the respondent to immediately pay/reimburse him the entire outdoor medical treatment expenses of his mother for the period from 6.6.2010 to 16.8.2014 within three months of bills and prescriptions from the applicant on furnishing of an Indemnity Bond. Therefore, the relief claimed by the applicant, vide paragraph 8(b) of the O.A., does not deserve consideration.