M. Sivagnanam Pillai vs The Special Secretary to Government and Others

R. Mahadevan, J—This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to I.D. KKM/01/RE460/69534, dated 01.04.2014 on the file of the fourth respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to reimburse the amount of Rs. 1,93,009/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Three Thousand and Nine only) with 9% interest.

The case of the petitioner is that he retired as Joint Block Development Officer on 31.05.2011 and while he was serving as Deputy Block Development Officer, at Agasteeswaram Panchayat Union, he suffered a heart ailment and took treatment between 06.04.2010 and 09.04.2010 in Kumarasamy Hospital at Perumalpuram and thereafter, he took further treatment at P.R. Hospital, in Trivandrum on 30.04.2010 and underwent angioplasty surgery. Thereafter, he approached the fourth respondent seeking reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him, however, his claim was rejected on the ground that he took treatment in the Non-Network Hospital. Hence, the present writ petition.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the earlier order of this Court in M. Bharathi v. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli and others [W.P(MD) No. 14113 of 2014, decided on 19.09.2014] and prayed for passing similar orders in this writ petition also.

Whereas the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that the claim of the petitioner may be directed to be considered by the fourth respondent in the light of the earlier order passed by this Court in the above judgment and prayed for passing appropriate orders.

Despite notice being served on the fourth respondent and the name being printed on the cause list, there is no representation on behalf of the fourth respondent either in person or through Counsel.

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

In similar circumstances, this Court, in M. Bharathi v. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli and others [W.P(MD) No. 14113 of 2014, decided on 19.09.2014], has held as under:

"The petitioner seeks for issuance of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order of the 2nd respondent and for a consequential direction to the respondent to reimburse the medical expenses of Rs. 4,58,497/- to him.

The issue raised in this writ petition is no longer res integra and has been decided in earlier writ petitions and it is worthwhile to refer to the decision of this Court in W.P. (MD) No. 7604 of 2014 dated 30.04.2014, wherein it has been held as follows:

"6. In this case, the Petitioner''s claim for medical reimbursement was rejected only on the reason that the Petitioner''s husband had undergone the treatment at the non net-work hospital (KIMS HOSPITAL, TRIVANDRUM). Such objection raised in similar matter was considered and rejected by this Court in W.P. No. 8449 of 2007, dated 25.09.2013 by following the earlier decisions of this Court. Para 6 of the above said order reads as follows:

As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 2714 of 2007(T)(O.A. No. 5757 of 2001), dated 4.11.2011, a person struggling for life or his family members cannot be expected at the golden hours to search for a recognized hospital to save the life of such person for the immediate medical facilities. The idea to get the MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT will not certainly strike in their mind at that point of time so as to search for hospitals, which are listed by the Government as recognized institutions. Therefore, if that requirement is expected to be complied with by the ailing person or his family members, then the object of giving the reimbursement itself would be totally defeated. Therefore, I am in full agreement with the observations made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in their respective decisions cited supra. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to reimburse the Petitioner the amount claimed by him within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs."

It is further seen that the above order of this Court is subsequently followed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P(MD) No. 14585 of 2013 dated 21.1.2014 wherein the learned Judge has observed in para 5 as follows:

"5. As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 2714 of 2007(T)(O.A. No. 5757 of 2001), dated 4.11.2011, a person struggling for life or his family members cannot be expected at the golden hours to search for a recognized hospital to save the life of such person for the immediate medical facilities. The idea to get the MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT will not certainly strike in their mind at that point of time so as to search for hospitals, which are listed by the Government as recognized institutions. Therefore, if that requirement is expected to be complied with by the ailing person or his family members, then the object of giving the reimbursement itself would be totally defeated. Therefore, I am in full agreement with the observations made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in their respective decisions cited supra. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to reimburse the Petitioner the amount claimed by him within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In view of the judgment referred to supra, this Writ Petition is allowed and accordingly the order impugned is set aside and consequently the first respondent is directed to reimburse the medical expenses pertaining to the Petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed."

Following the above decision, the writ petition is allowed and the 2nd respondent is directed to reimburse the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed."

Following the same, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the fourth respondent in I.D. KKM/01/RE460/69534, dated 01.04.2014, is quashed and consequently, the fourth respondent is directed to reimburse the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.