terminal illness. The OPs contrary to Railway Board policy and RELHS scheme with regard to reimbursement of medical expenses or treatment could not have settled ... contended that the complainant during his service before this superannuation opted for RELHS scheme. Under the said scheme, the Railway Employees and his dependent
Railways, retired from PS
Delhi Main, N. Railway. Holding Medical Card under RELHS-
97. His wife namely Smt. Shakuntla Devi Agarwal, under regular
treatment ... reimbursement claim.
4. It is stated that complainant filed claim form RELHS
Scheme-97 along with one bill no. 2019/2020/CR/I/0011573
availing of the said medical services and facilities under the
said RELH Scheme and the Railway Authority issued RELHS card being
no.LHS/HOW/5305 ... seizure disorder and the Complainant no.1 being the holder of the
RELHS card took her to the B.R. Singh Hospital
processed subject to fulfillment of the conditions laid down in
RELHS scheme. The opposite parties narrated the essential features of the RELHS
and finally contended ... conclusion that the bills
pertained to the period after he joined RELHS though he joined the said scheme
only on 31-3-2002, after
extended treatment against cash payment when
he was not covered by RELH Scheme, his contribution having been effective only
from 21.8.02. From ... discharge from the hospital, his entire treatment was done under
the said RELHS cover. Any claim
subsequent to the discharge date
hired the services of OPs under
liberalized health scheme, known as RELHS, for himself and his wife
with regard to reimbursement of medical treatment claim ... vide MR No.964135 dated 19.04.2005 for
providing its services under the RELHS, which was later on
registered with Ludhiana office, as per endorsement dated
from Railway Department. He fell under
"Retired Employees Liberalized Health Scheme (RELHS), for which
a sum of ₹22,820/- was charged. The wife ... upon the complainant,
was also enrolled under the said scheme and Medical/RELHS
Identity Card No.028844 was issued to the complainant. The wife
vkosnd clar dqekj dEikuh
ds }kjk RELHS fjVkMZ bEIykbZ fycjykbTM gsYFk Ldhe ;kstuk ds vUrxZr viuk
,d ekg dk ewy osru va'knku ... djrs gq, RELHS dh lnL;rk izkIr dh xbZ Fkh] ftlds lanHkZ esa eku~uh; loksZPp
U;k;ky; us bl izdkj dh Ldhe
cited case laws because in that case an employee subscribe to RELH (Railway employees Liberalised Health Scheme), whereas in the present case the complainant
wrongly
repudiated by the OPs. Ex.C-1 is the copy of RELHS card of
complainant. Ex.C-2 is the copy of Pensioner
