Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. In the written statement filed by the respondents, it has been pleaded that as per the rules of the respondent-Bank, the cost of nucleus cochlear is not reimbursable. It has been further pleaded that as per the opinion of the Chief Medical Officer at the Corporate Centre of State Bank of India, "cochlear implant may be treated as implant of 'Specialized' hearing aid. It is not absolutely necessary for life saving." As regards the two cases where the respondent-Bank had accorded approval for reimbursement of the cost of cochlear implant, it is stated that it was by sheer mistake of the concerned authorities and the relevant service rules were ignored. The respondent-Bank is examining the accountability of the erring officials of the Hyderabad Circle of respondent-Bank to that effect. It has been further pleaded that a similar case of one of the officers in the Mumbai Circle for request of a cochlear implant for her son was declined for the reasons that the cost of 'hearing aid' is not reimbursable in terms of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992. Moreover, a cochlear implant is an improved device/substitute of a conventional hearing aid and, as such, its cost is not reimbursable. Regarding the circular dated November 14, 2000 (Annexure P-1), relied upon by the petitioner, it has been stated that it is merely in the nature of guidelines issued by the Chandigarh Circle for the sanctioning authority to examine the claims of medical reimbursement submitted by the officers. The service rules of the respondent-Bank, as applicable to the petitioner, do not allow for such medical reimbursement. It is pleaded that the orders (Annexures P-5, P-7 and P-9) have been correctly passed.

8. On January 31, 2008, the following order was passed by this Court after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties:

The petitioner seeks medical reimbursement in respect of Cochlear implant Surgery to augment hearing of his son. The said reimbursement has been declined by the respondents on the ground that it is hearing aid for which medical reimbursement is not payable.

It is evident from the Certificate (Annexure P-3) issued by P.G.I., Chandigarh that despite use of hearing aids and speech therapy training, the patient is unable to hear and converse and therefore, implantation of Nucleus Cochlear implant was suggested. From document page 105 and 106, it is apparent that Cochlear Implant is not hearing aid. Hearingaids make sound louder and they are simply miniature amplifiers, wherein Cochlear Implant is n e@e@tronic device which restores partial hearing of the totally deaf.

a) It is not correct that hearing aids are simply miniature amplifiers and they make sound louder.

b) anything which facilitates hearing is a hearing aid.

c) Cochlear Implant facilitates hearing by passing defective cochlea, thereby improving sound transmission.

10. It is admitted by the respondents that as per Circular (Annexure P-1), issued by the respondent-Bank, expenditure incurred on 'Cochlear Implant Surgery' is reimburs able. However, strangely enough, in the written statement it has been mentioned ttfat the said Circular is merely in the nature of guide-lines issued by the Chandigarh Circle for the sanctioning authority to examine the claims of medical reimbursement submitted by the Officers. It appears that the Hyderabad Circle of the respondent-bank positively in terpreted the Circular (Annexure P-1) and made reimbursement of Cochlear Implant to its employees. We do not appreciate the stand of the respondents that the approval for reimbursement of the cost of Cochlear Implant was accorded by the Hyderabad Circle of the respondent-Bank by sheer mistake. The respondents' plea is not only unsustainable but is totally bereft of any plausible reason. The rules/instructions need to be construed liberally in favour of the employees, for granting them the relief. The technicalities should be avoided while dealing with human problems as there can be no mathematical precision while dealing with the same. The petitioner had been repeatedly making re quests to the authorities for granting him permission to take treatment for his son, but the authorities continuously opposed it to the hilt, which is not at all acceptable. The re spondents appear to have been using excuses in granting sanction to the petitioner for treatment of his son. There was no choice for the petitioner except to improve the life of his son by all efforts. Ultimately, the petitioner got his son operated for Cochlear Implant from Apollo Hospital by arranging the funds from own sources and by obtaining loan from relatives and friends. He had to incur an expenditure of Rs. 9.48 lacs i.e. total cost of implant, Rs. 25,000/- a cost of rechargeable Battery, Rs. 31,000/- as Hospital expenses, and Rs. 50,000/- on post-surgery speech therapy, totaling Rs. 10,54,000/- as is evident from the certificate issued by Dr. Ameet Kishore, E.N.T. and Chchelat Implant Surgeon, Apollo Hospital (Annexure P-10). The petitioner did what was good for his son. It is fair and just that the respondents reimburse the petitioner the amount incurred by him on the Nucleus Cochlear Implant of his son.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that refusal of claim of the petitioner is unreasonable, unjust and arbitrary. The impugned orders are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We, accordingly, allow this writ petition and set aside the impugned orders declining sanction to the petitioner for medical reimbursement for Nucleus Cochlear Implant of his son. The respondents are directed to reimburse to the petitioner the amount incurred by him on the Nucleus Cochlear Implant of his son. The reimbursement be made to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.