By Priya Gour
Published on: 1st August, 2022 at 19:15 IST
The Gujarat High Court once again observed that it is wrongful for the state to deny the reimbursement of claim of Government employees. Therefore, the govt should resist from doing so. The employees have the right to be reimbursed timely.
The Bench headed by Justice Birendra Vaishnav quoted:
“The right to medical claim cannot be denied merely because the name of the hospital is not included in the Government Order. The real test must be the factum of treatment. It must be ensured that ensure as to whether the claimant had actually taken treatment and the factum of treatment is supported by records duly certified by Doctors/Hospitals.”
The Petitioner underwent a surgery at an expense of Rs.1,76,757, of which only a sum of Rs.62,100 was reimbursed. The reason for partial reimbursement given by Govt. was that the surgery was not carried out at a government hospital. Hence, the petitioner claimed that her medical treatment at Rajasthan Hospital was misconceived.
The High Court duly noted that, “Is is a legal position that the Government employee during his lifetime or after his retirement is entitled to get the benefit of the medical facilities and no fetters can be placed on his rights.”
“It is acceptable to common sense, that ultimate decision as to how a patient should be treated vests only with the Doctor who is well versed and expert both on academic qualification and experience gained. Very little scope is left to the patient or his relative to decide as to the manner in which the ailment should be treated.”
The Court made reference to Chandrakant Kantila (supra) in the above matter . It also said that the main fact that is to be verifiable before reimbursement should be whether the treatment has actually been availed or not. The hospital’s name in govt. records cannot be a justified for denial of claim.
The Court reiterated the principles provided by the Supreme Court in Shiv Kant Jha v Union of India. It was further said that the reimbursement falls in line with the objective of a Welfare State such as India. Also, no law mentions that the employee must take prior permission of govt., especially when the survival of the patient is of utmost importance.
Henceforth, the Court ordered for reimbursement of the full balance along with annual interest of 9%, within a period of 10 weeks to the petitioner.