Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. After obtaining an audiology report, the petitioner went back to Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru from where he was referred to Apollo Hospital, Bengaluru, since, it was diagnosed that the child needed cochlear implants and the facility was not available at Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru. The recommendation made by Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru was endorsed by Dr.A.K.Satpati, who was the Medical Superintendent, 50 BH Bengaluru, C.R.P.F. Accordingly, as per the recommendation, the petitioner approached his group centre with the reference and approval by Dr.A.K.Satpati, D.I.G.P. The petitioner was informed that a sum of Rs.11,50,000/- would be the approximate cost of operation and a letter in that regard was addressed by the attending doctor at Apollo Hospital to the Commandant 46th NC: 2023:KHC:26586 Battalion C.R.P.F. However, there was no reply by the Commandant, 46th Battalion.

6. Later, the respondent No.2 in terms of the letter dated 30.08.2012 rejected the reimbursement on the ground that, the Standing Committee Constituted for the purpose had not approved and recommended the reimbursement of expenses incurred for cochlear implant surgery. It is this order which is challenged in this writ petition.

NC: 2023:KHC:26586

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner did not bring his son for treatment outside the Composite Hospital, Hyderabad, but it was the latter which initially referred the petitioner's son to Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences and thereafter to Victoria Hospital and then to Apollo Hospital. The reference made by Apollo Hospital was agreed by Dr.A.K.Satpati, Karnataka Group Centre, C.R.P.F Hospital Yelahanka. Thus, he contend that the petitioner was entitled for reimbursement of amount spent for the treatment of his son.

8. Per contra, the learned Deputy Solicitor General representing the respondents submits that, the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family welfare has issued a office memorandum dated 12.06.2009 framing guidelines for cochlear implant surgery. He submits that, a Standing Committee is constituted which has to approve and recommend the reimbursement of expenses of the surgery. Unless the committee recommends, the respondents are not in a position to reimburse the expenses.

10. The fact that the petitioner has been serving in force is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had taken his son to the Composite Hospital, Hyderabad for examination by a ENT Specialist, since the child was neither able to speak nor hear. However, there were no ENT specialist at Composite Hospital, Hyderabad and therefore was referred to Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences, from where, he was referred to Victoria Hospital Bengaluru. At Victoria Hospital, he was referred to Apollo Hospital for a cochlear implant surgery. This reference was approved by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, C.R.P.F Hospital, Yelahanka, Bengaluru. It is only NC: 2023:KHC:26586 thereafter, steps were taken for the surgery of the child. If the petitioner had spent a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for the surgery of the child, he is entitled to be reimbursed. The contentions urged by the respondent that the Standing Committee had not approved and recommended the reimbursement is of no consequences, as the petitioner did not take the child directly to Appollo Hospital, but was due to chain of reference that the child had to be treated at Apollo hospital, Bengaluru.