Partha Bhattacharjee vs State Of Tripura And Ors

[1] Heard Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents.

[2] As agreed by the learned counsel for the parties this matter has been taken up for final disposal. The controversy raised in this writ petition falls within a short compass. The petitioner's wife namely Aparajita Banerjee, since deceased fell suddenly ill and as medical emergency she was treated outside the state as she was suffering from Burkitt leukemia. She was taken to Tata Medical Center, Kolkata as according to the petitioner treatment of the said disease is not available in the State of Tripura and the medical emergency was so pressing that there was no scope of getting the referral through the Standing Medical Board.

[3] As the wife of the petitioner fell ill in Kolkata on 16.02.2018 when she was went to stay with her relatives, she was immediately taken to the nearby specialty hospital and was treated there w.e.f. 31.03.2018 to 06.04.2018 and 10.04.2018 to 09.05.2018 in the said hospital. The petitioner raised the medical reimbursement bill, as he is entitled to such reimbursement as the treatment of such ailment was not available in the state of Tripura and there was no scope for treatment in the state of Tripura in the emerged circumstances. Moreover for treatment of cancer, Government of Tripura has adopted a policy to reimburse even the spouse if she/he suffered from carcinoma.

[4] Accordingly, the petitioner raised the reimbursement bill for the medical expenses for the period from 19.02.2018 to 11.03.2018, 31.03.2018 to 06.04.2018 and 10.04.2018 to 09.05.2018 respectively for sum of Rs.3,97,418/-, Rs.58,774/- and Rs.28,968/- [in total Rs.4,85,160/-]. But the respondent No.4 vide note No.4 dated 30.11.2018, Annexure-4 to the writ petition denied sanction. Later on, by the communication dated 07.12.2018, Annexure-5 to the writ petition, the petitioner was communicated that medical reimbursement has been regretted by the Finance Department, Government of Tripura.

[5] Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the said decision has been adopted by the respondents departing from the Memorandum dated 09.08.2005, Annexure-6 to the writ petition. In the said Memorandum, it has clearly been provided that when a Group-C/Group-D Government Employee himself/herself or any member of his/her family suffers from cancer and is referred to a Medical Institution/Hospital outside the State by the Standing Medical Board, the cost of the treatment in such institution/Hospital is admissible. Journey expenses are only to the referral institute/Hospital. The journey expenses of the escort, if any, recommended of the Standing Medical Board is also admissible for reimbursement.

[6] Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. in his usual fairness has submitted that the medical reimbursement is allowed only to the State Government Officials for treatment outside the State on being referred by the Standing Medical Board to the referral Medical Institutions. It is also a factual position that no procedure has been prescribed by the State Government to weigh that emergency, which can be said beyond control of the employee. If the treatment was carried out without being referred by the Standing Medical Board either from the approved hospital or private hospital (not approved), to what extent the medical expenses/charges can be reimbursed under the scheme and more so, in absence of such guidelines. The Education Department has expressed their inability to reimburse the medical expenses.

[7] Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has referred to Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in (1996) 2 SCC 336 where the apex court had occasion to observe that not the procedure formalities but the exigencies of life is of paramount importance. On such circumstances, observance of the rule shall not be insisted, rather payment shall be made in accordance with the rate of referral hospital.

[8] In Surjit Singh, Apex Court has propounded the law in no unambiguous words stating that preservance of life is far more important than to observe the technical rules when it is a question of saving someone's life.

[9] Having appreciated the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view, the respondents shall reimburse the medical expenses of the petitioner in terms of the Memorandum dated 09.08.2005, Annexure-6 to the writ petition read with the principles laid in Surjit Singh (supra).

[10] The respondents shall take advice of the Director of Health Services while determining the charge of the referral hospital. For purpose of reimbursement of journey of the wife of the petitioner and an escort, it has to be done according to the Memorandum dated 09.08.2005, Annexure-6 to the writ petition.

[11] The entire exercise of reimbursement, following the process indicated above, shall be completed within a period of 4 (four) months from the date when the petitioner shall submit a copy of this order.

[12] In terms of the above, this writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

A copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties for doing the needful.