Nafr High Court
Case Details
Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL Date: 2025.03.04 15:18:39 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:9633 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3732 of 2015 Smt. Sindhu Pradhan W/o Late Shyam Lal Pradhan, Aged About 54 Years R/o Rajeev Vihar, Near Samudayik Bhawan, Rajkishor Nagar, Thana Sarkanda, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh versus --- Petitioner 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Superintendent of Police, Railway, G.R.P., Railway Station Chowk, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3.- Director (M.R.), Health Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondents/State For Petitioner : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, counsel appears on behalf of Mr. Utkal Pradhan, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order On Board 25.02.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 26.12.2009 (Annexure- P/1) passed by respondent No. 3 pertaining to reimbursement of medical bills of petitioner’s late husband has been withheld for compliance of two objections. So, this petition is sought by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- 2 “i. That, this Hon’ble Court may kinldy be pleased to quash impugned order dated 26.12.2009 (Annexure P/1) and direct the respondent authorities to pass the medical reimbursement bill amount Rs. 1,80,725.29/- and also pass the amount about Rs. 1,94,496.26/- and Rs. 1,64,101.82/- with interest. ii. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit also is grant in favour of the petitioner. iii. Cost of the petition.” 2.
Legal Reasoning
The facts of the case, as projected in the present writ petition, in brief, the husband of the petitioner was working as a Head Constable, Government Railway Police of Chhattisgarh State, posted at G.R.P., Thana- Bilaspur. The husband of the petitioner expired on 14.01.2009 during the service tenure because of some kidney ailment at Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur. Some medical bills of husband of petitioner were submitted for reimbursement which were
Legal Reasoning
received by Late Shri Shyam Lal Pradhan. Thereafter the medical bills were submitted at Head Office, Raipur Superintendent of Police (Rly.) for reimbursement. The medical bills were submitted in the proper format and with all the necessary documentation. Few medical bills were passed by the Health Director Department, Raipur which were received by late Shri Shyam Lal Pradhan. However, after sometime respondent No. 3 raised some objections (pertaining to medical bills amounting to Rs. 1,80,725.29/-) which were not legal i.e., the objections raised were not at all supported by statutory rules. The petitioner had also submitted medical bills amounting to Rs. 1,94,496.26/- and Rs. 1,64,101.82/- which has not been considered by respondent No. 3. Despite the objections being not a legal necessity, the petitioner cured the objections and sent the revised bills to respondent No. 2, 3 but again respondent No. 3 raised frivolous objections and sent the impugned objections letter dated 26.12.2009(Annexure P/1). The respondent authorities raised the objection that the medical bills are not in a proper format i.e., the sign of the civil surgeon is not present and that the original slip of OPD is not attached, whereas, the respondent authorities has failed to mention the rule under which such requirement has been provided for reimbursement of medical bills. On 04.01.2013 & 25.03.2015, the petitioner made a representation to respondent No. 2 and No. 3 and requested to grant her opportunity of personal hearing for explaining that the objection raised are not legal objection, but respondent No. 2 till date has neither sent reply to the petitioner(the medical bills to the respondent No. 3) for reimbursement nor has given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner is an aged widow lady and from past so many years she is struggling to meet her ends as the concerned respondent authorities are not paying any heed to her efforts of claiming reimbursement. Hence, this present petition filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities for arbitrary reasons are not clearing the pending medical bills of the petitioner’s late husband, the respondent authorities raised the objection that the medical bills are not in proper format i.e., the sign of the civil surgeon is neither present and nor the original slip of OPD is attached, whereas the respondent authorities have failed to mention the rule under which such requirement has been provided for clearance of medical bills. He next submits that the petitioner is a widow lady, some how, she is managing the livelihood of herself and her children, the objection raised for the medical reimbursement is causing her great hardship, as she made several efforts by moving from post to pillar to get the medical bills reimbursed of her late husband, despite that her efforts went in vain. Thus, she prays that respondent authorities may be 4 directed to quash the impugned order dated 26.12.2009 (Annexure P/1) and also may be directed to respondent authorities to pass the medical reimbursement bill amounting to Rs. 1,80,725.29/- and also pass the amount about Rs. 1,94,496.26 and Rs. 1,64,101.82/- with interest. She places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Shiva Kant Jha vs. Union of India, reported in (2018) 16 SCC 187 and also the decision of this Hon’ble Court in the matter of Sanjeev Kumar Thakur vs. State of Chhattisgarh, passed in WPS No. 846 of 2021. 4. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3/State strongly opposes the above prayer as made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that impugned order dated 26.12.2009 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No. 3 is just and proper as the petitioner has not furnished the medical reimbursement bill duly counter-sign by the District Civil Surgeon- Cum-Hospital Superintendent on different heads, so also the petitioner had not enclosed the original copy of the OPD slip. These objections were raised in pursuance of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958 under the Rules 7 & 8 and as per said rules, application for reimbursement shall be in Form- I and it shall be accompanied by an essentiality certificate in Form- II duly signed by the authorized medical attendant. The drugs, which are outside the priced vocabulary of the Medical Stores Depot, the essentiality certificate in Form-II shall be counter-sign by the Civil Surgeon. A copy of Form I & II is annexed as Annexure R-2. Learned counsel for the respondents/State further submits that husband of the petitioner, who was working as Head Constable in the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Railway), Raipur died on 14.01.2009 during his service tenure because of kidney ailment at Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur and the medical expenses were borne by him and thereafter the medical bills were submitted at Head Office, 5 Deputy Superintendent of Police, Raipur (Railway) for reimbursement. The petitioner claims that the medical bills were submitted in proper format and with all necessary documentation. The petitioner submitted that few of his medical bills were passed by the Health Director Department, Raipur, but in some bills, it was pointed out that the bills were not supported by statutory rules. Thereafter the medical bills submitted by the petitioner were not considered by respondent No. 3/Director (M.R.), Health Department, District- Raipur (C.G.). The impugned order dated 26.12.2009 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No. 3 is just and proper as the petitioner has not furnished the medical reimbursement bill duly counter-sign by the District Civil Surgeon- cum-Hospital Superintendent on different heads, also the petitioner had not enclosed the original copy of the OPD Slip and according to the provisions prescribed under Rules 7 & 8, the impugned order passed by the competent authority. Therefore, the instant petition being devoid of merit, liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is not disputed in this case that husband of the petitioner was working as Head Constable in the Police Department (Railway) and he was suffering from kidney ailment and he died on 14.01.2009 during his service tenure at Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur. The petitioner, who is the wife of deceased employee, had filed medical bills claiming for reimbursement, but vide impugned order dated 26.12.2009 (Annexure P/1), the respondent authorities demanded original OPD slip and counter-sign of Civil Surgeon. 7. This Court observed in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Thakur (supra)1, held in paras 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17, which read as under:- 1 (2018) 16 SCC 187 6 “ 12. Rule 6(6) of the Rules of 2009 contemplates grant of permission by Director General of Police for the treatment undergone by a Police Officer/employee for his ailment outside the State on recommendation of Civil Surgeon of concerned District in special circumstances with the approval of Director, Medical Education within 15 days, and by necessary application, the Director General of Police would have the same power and jurisdiction to grant post-facto permission with the approval of Director, Medical Education, even after the concerned Police Officer/employee has already undergone treatment on account of an emergent situation without being able to inform about the same to the Head of the Department. The power of Director General of Police, as envisaged under Rule 6(6) of the Rules of 2009, is not restricted only to grant permission prior to medical treatment. Permission can be granted by the Director General of Police after the treatment has been undergone by the concerned police officer in special circumstances with approval of the Director, Medical Education within the specified time. 13. In the matter of State of M.P. and Others v. M.P. Ojha and Another 2 , Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were dealing with M.P. Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958 and they have held that a flexible approach has to be adopted in interpreting and applying these Rules and they have further held that these rules have to be construed liberally. 14. The Supreme Court in the matter of Consumer Education & Research Centre and others v. Union of India and others3 has held that right to health and medical care to protect his health and vigour while in service or post- retirement is a fundamental right of a worker under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and observed as under : “22. The expression 'life' assured in Article 21 of the Constitution does not connote mere animal existence or continued drudgery through life. It has a much wider meaning which includes right to 7 livelihood, better standard of life, hygienic conditions in the workplace and leisure. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn.4 this Court held that no person can live without the means of living i.e. means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content of meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live, leave aside what makes life liveable. The right to life with human dignity encompasses within its fold, some of the finer facets of human civilisation which makes life worth living. The expanded connotation of life would mean the tradition and cultural heritage of the persons concerned. In State of H.P. v. Umed Ram Sharma5 this Court held that the right to life includes the quality of life as understood in its richness and fullness by the ambit of the Constitution. Access to road was held to be an access to life itself in that State.
Decision
25. Therefore, we hold that right to health, medical aid to protect the health and vigour of a worker while in service or post- retirement is a fundamental right under Article 21, read with Articles 39(e), 41, 43, 48A and all related articles and fundamental human rights to make the life of the workman meaningful and purposeful with dignity of person.” 15. Likewise, in the matter of Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others6, the Supreme Court has held that self-preservation of one's life is the necessary concomitant of the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and observed as under : ““11. It is otherwise important to bear in mind that self-preservation of one's life is the necessary concomitant of the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, fundamental in nature, sacred, precious and inviolable. The importance and validity of the duty and right to self-preservation has a species in the right of self-defence in criminal law. Centuries ago thinkers of this great land conceived of such right and recognised it. Attention can usefully be drawn to Verses 17 18, 20 and 22 in Chapter 16 of the Garuda Purana (A dialogue suggested between the Divine and Garuda, the bird) in the words of the Divine: 17 Vinaa dehena kasyaapi canpurushaartho na vidyate Tasmaaddeham dhanam rakshetpunyakarmaani saadhayet Without the body how can one obtain the objects of human life? Therefore protecting the body which is the wealth, one should perform the deeds of merit. 8 18 Rakshayetsarvadaatmaanamaatmaa sarvasya bhaajanam Rakshane yatnamaatishthejje vanbhaadraani pashyati One should protect his body which is responsible for everything. He who protects himself by all efforts, will see many auspicious occasions in life. 20 Sharirarakshanopaayaah kriyante sarvadaa budhaih Necchanti cha punastyaagamapi kushthaadiroginah The wise always undertake the protective measures for the body. Even the persons suffering from leprosy and other diseases do not wish to get rid of the body. * * * 22 Aatmaiva yadi naatmaanamahitebhyo nivaarayet Konsyo hitakarastasmaadaatmaanam taarayishyati If one does not prevent what is unpleasant to himself, who else will do it? Therefore one should do what is good to himself.” ” 16. Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of In Re : The Proper Treatment of Covid 19 Patients and Dignified Handling f Dead Bodies in the Hospitals etc. 7 has held that right to health is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Right to health includes affordable treatment. 17. In the matter of Suman Rakheja (Supra), it has been held by the Supreme Court that in emergent cases, the concerned Government servant is entitled for medical reimbursement for treatment in private hospital even though non- recognized by the State Government. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the judgment states as under : “3. The appellant is the wife of a deceased government servant who had undergone treatment in the Apollo Hospital, New Delhi, which was a private hospital and which was not recognised/approved at that time. For the treatment in that hospital the appellant incurred expenses to the tune of Rs 6,01,166 and the appellant, by way of an application prayed for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred, but the same was declined by the State, on the ground that the hospital wherein the appellant's husband had undergone the treatment was not an approved hospital. 9 4. Counsel for the appellant submitted that in similar case (Annexure P4) i.e. by the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Sant Prakash v. State of Haryana8wherein in an emergency case the patient had to be immediately admitted in hospital, the relief has been granted. In the present case also the appellant's husband had to be rushed to the private hospital because he had developed a paralytic stroke on the left side of the body, as there was blood clotting on the right side of the brain and therefore, was admitted in an emergency condition in the hospital. In the present case the discharge certificate also shows that the case was an emergency one. In Sant Prakash Case the Division Bench held that the petitioner would be entitled for 100% medical expenses at the AIIMS rates and 75% of the expenditure in excess thereto. 5. In the result, in this appeal also, the appellant herein would be entitled to get the refund of the amount of 100% medical expenses at the AIIMS rates and 75% of the expenditure in excess thereto. ” 8. In the light of above judgment, in the present case also, it is not disputed that husband of the petitioner was working in the Police Department (Railway) as Head Constable and he died on 14.01.2009 during his service tenure because of kidney ailment at Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur. Thus, in the present case also, the provisions contained under the aforesaid rules which governs the reimbursement of medical expenses borne by any police officer/State’s employee, shall also be applied in this case as has been observed by this Court in the matter of Sanjeev Kumar Thakur (supra) that Right to Health is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the provisions relating to reimbursement of expense incurred on medical treatment has to be flexible. 9. As such looking to the facts and circumstance of the case, in the light of the above judgment, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.12.2009 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside and the matter is sent to the respondents No. 2 & 3/competent authority, who will process the case of the petitioner and shall also consider and decide her claim for reimbursement in accordance with law within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10 10. As an upshot, the instant writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE AMIT PATEL