SATPAL PEBMA vs Union of India

SHRI Satpal Pebma, the complainant is an employee of P.G.I., his father SHRI Banarsi Das, aged 65 years was admitted in the P.G.I, in the last week of August, 1996. He had several problems such as pain in the right leg, ailment in spine, etc. He was examined by an Orthopedist as well as Neurosurgon in the OPD. Thereafter he was referred to Cardiology Department where he was also examined by Medical Officers such as Dr. R.P. Sapru, Dr. A.K. Gupta, Dr. Rajvanshi etc. The complainant could not arrange purchase of the required kit, etc. for further treatment because its price was likely to be more than Rs. 80,000/-. The grievance of the complainant is that he himself being an employee of the P.G.I. was entitled to free treatment of his father and the patient died on account of deficiency on the part of the respondents. He has claimed a compensation of Rs. 7 lacs.

A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been averred that Shri Banarsi Das, the patient himself had been an employee in Christian Medical College, Ludhiana. He retired on 9.5.1994 and was drawing a pension of Rs. 890/- p.m. According to the rules a person having income of Rs. 500/- p.m. could not be considered to be a dependent and since pension drawn by the patient was more than Rs. 500/- p.m. he was not entitled to free treatment merely because the complainant-son too was an employee of the P.G.I. The respondents have also tried to explain that the costly kit required for operation and treatment of the patient required approval of the Purchase Committee and it was found to be beyond its jurisdiction. The aforesaid sum could probably be approved by the Financial Advisor but before this formality could be completed the patient died on27.9.1996. Here the grievance of the complainant is mainly based on the plea that being father of an employee the patient was entitled to free treatment and the respondents were deficient in providing the aforesaid facility and wrongfully insisted on complainant to meet the expenses.

Mr. H.S. Awasthi, the learned Counsel for the respondents has drawn our attention to rules relating to Concessions for Families (R-3). The parents of an employee may not be entitled to free treatment in all cases. There is Note-1 which is relevant for the purpose and is reproduced as under: "Note 1-The members of the family are treated as dependent only if their income from all sources including pension and pension equivalent of gratuity does not exceed Rs. 500/- p.m. The condition of dependency both in the case of the husband of the wife of the Government servant has been dispensed with."

A perusal of this note shows that if the pension of patient exceeded Rs. 500/-p.m. he shall not be considered dependent. In the case now in hand there is a certificate issued by Christian Medical College dated 22.8.1997 which shows that Shri Banarsi Das, their ex-employee was drawing a monthly pension of Rs. 890/-. Since the pension exceeded Rs. 500/- p.m. he was not entitled to free treatment. Thus it was incumbent upon the complainant-son to meet the expenses which the guardian or attendant of a patient is usually required. Moreover in this case the complainant concealed the income of the patient at the time of admission.

IN this case the patient had perepheral vasolar disease together with coronery artery ailment as per autopsy conducted in the P.G.I. itself. Since the complainant could not establish that his father was entitled to free treatment, it shall not be fair to fasten the respondents the alleged damages. It is a different issue that the Post Graduate INstitute of Medical and Research located at Chandigarh may with the help of Union of INdia possess means to assist such needy patients in the public interest. So far as the present complaint for damages is concerned, it fails and is hereby dismissed. Announced. Complaint dismissed.