Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petitioner serves in the Sessions Division, Fatehgarh Sahib as Reader (Grade-II). Sanction for medical advance [80% of the estimated amount] to the petitioner for medically advised Cochlear Implant Surgery of his daughter, namely, Gurleen Kaur was accorded on 19.10.2012 by order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Judges. The sanction was based on the recommendations of the Civil Surgeon, Fatehgarh Sahib dated 08.10.2012 addressed to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib, the Court to which the petitioner was attached. The estimated cost in respect of Cochlear Implant Surgery was Rs.8,00,000/- for which 80% i.e. Rs.6,40,000/- was paid to the petitioner in advance. The surgery was performed at the 1 of 3 Government Medical College & Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh in May, 2013.

It is not a disputed fact that the Civil Surgeon, Fatehgarh Sahib had recommended for 80% medical advance based on the bills of Government Medical College & Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh. Based on these recommendations, the Punjab & Haryana High Court issued sanction order dated 19.10.2012 (Annex P-4) permitting medical advance of Rs.6,40,000/- i.e. 80% of the estimated amount of Rs.8,00,000/-.

The Government Medical College & Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh is a government institution and its estimates in respect of expenses to be incurred on Cochlear Implant Surgery are hardly disputable because those were actual expenses incurred in 2013. To pin the rates of 2 of 3 2005, as fixed by AIIMS, in 2013, as urged by the Punjab Government, would appear to be far too technical a plea on costing with rising prices of medical treatment during the last 8 years between publication of AIIMS rates and the year of surgery. The petitioner cannot be blamed to base his claim on the estimate of Government Medical College & Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh and the estimates approved by the Civil Surgeon, Fatehgarh Sahib and to act accordingly. It is not a case where treatment was taken from a private hospital and then AIIMS rates are insisted upon. The action of the respondent State in denying the claim to the extent impugned and leading to the recovery notice is wanton, arbitrary devise and is held not to be sustainable.