Most. Jubeda Khatoon …. … v. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Director, Ranchi. The General Manager
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4601 of 2012 Most. Jubeda Khatoon …. …. Petitioner 1. M/s Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Versus 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Director, Ranchi. The General Manager (P & IR), Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi. The General Manager, Sounda-D Colliery, M/s Central Coalfields Limited, Ramgarh. The Project Officer, M/s Central Coalfields Limited, Bhurkunda, Ramgarh. The Finance Manager, M/s Central Coalfields Limited, Bhurkunda, Ramgarh. The Chief Medical Officer, M/s Central Coalfields Limited, Bhurkunda, Ramgarh. …. … Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
------ Mr. Vijay Shankar Jha, Advocate : : Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate ----- 6/ 17.01.2023 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondent-CCL to pay Rs.86,357/- on account of medical expenses incurred towards treatment of her husband in hospital. 3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner’s husband Late Md. Hafiz was posted under the respondent-CCL. It appears that in a road accident on 24.2.2009, the husband of the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and admitted in the Company hospital at Bhurkunda, from where he was immediately referred to RIMS, Ranchi. Thereafter, he was admitted at RIMS and remained under medical treatment for six days, but observing his condition, he was referred to higher medical institution. Thereafter, the petitioner’s husband was admitted at S.S.K.M. Hospital at Kolkata. Looking into the emergency situation of the patient, he was again referred to C.N.M.C.H. Though the petitioner approached CNMCH, but due to non-availability of bed, the patient could not be admitted. It is specific case of the petitioner that observing the very critical condition of the husband of the petitioner, he was admitted in nearby private hospital, namely, Bellona Nursing Home & Diagnostic Centre, Kolkata, as the C.N.M.C.H., is far away from S.S.K.M. Hospital where the patient was under treatment. Further case of the petitioner is that due to substandard 2 treatment given earlier at the employer’s empaneled hospital, the husband of the petitioner succumbed to his injuries on 7.3.2009 at Bellona Nursing Home & Diagnostic Center, Kolkata. In course of treatment, a sum of Rs. 86,357/- was expended. Thereafter, on being denied by the respondent-CCL to reimburse the medical expenses, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court. 4. Mr. V.N. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for reimbursement even for getting treatment at private hospital in view of critical condition of the patient. Learned counsel further submits that even the circular of the CCL shows that under special circumstances, when suitable treatment is not available in the hospital of the Company, an authorized medical attendant may refer a case to a private specialist / clinic / nursing home / hospital, provided he certifies the non-availability of treatment and obtains prior permission of the Chief Medical Officer concerned. If it was not possible to obtain prior permission due to urgency, it should be reported to CMO within 48 hours for his post-facto approval. Learned counsel further submits that when no heed was paid to the repeated requests of the petitioner for reimbursement, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court and as such, a direction be given to the respondents to consider her case for medical reimbursement. 5. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed. Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the CCL very fairly submits that the case of the petitioner was duly considered and rejected vide Annexure-9 dated 17.3.2012. Learned counsel further submits that admittedly the petitioner did not prefer to go to the referred hospital and admitted her husband at a hospital of her choice, which is a private hospital and was not emplaned to CCL and as such, no reimbursement was made. Learned counsel further submits that even the rejection order dated 17.3.2012 at Annexure-9 has not been challenged by the petitioner. In absence of any challenge to the order dated 17.3.2012 and also in view of the fact that the patient did not go to the referred hospital, there was no scope of medical reimbursement. As such, no interference is warranted in this writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon going through the record, this Court is of the considered view that the stand of the respondent-CCL is not praise worthy. The CCL has rejected the case 3 of the poor employee on flimsy ground. Admittedly the situation of the petitioner’s husband was very serious and therefore, he was referred to higher medical institution. The respondents are not disputing the said fact. It is also not in dispute that since there was no bed available in the concerned hospital where he was referred. Admittedly looking into the emergent situation and seriousness of the patient, there was no option other than to get him admitted in a nearby hospital. As such, the petitioner chose to get her husband admitted in nearby hospital, namely, Ballono Nursing Home & Diagnostic Centre, Kolkata. There is no fault on the part of the petitioner in getting the patient admitted in the said hospital. Merely on technical ground, the legitimate claim of a poor employee, like the petitioner, cannot be denied. 7. The issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Shailesh Dhairyawan vs. Mohan Balkrishna Lulla, reported in (2016) 3 SCC 619, wherein, Their Lordship has held that: “The principle of ‘purposive interpretation’ or ‘purposive construction’ is based on the understanding that the Court is supposed to attach that meaning to the provisions which serve the ‘purpose’ behind such a provision. The basic approach is to ascertain what is it designed to accomplish? To put it otherwise, by interpretative process the Court is supposed to realize the goal that the legal text is designed to realize.” 8. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Shiva Kant Jha v. Union of India, reported in (2018) 16 SCC 187 has held: “The Central Government Health Scheme (CHGS) was propounded with the purpose of providing health facility scheme to the central government employees so that they are not left without any medical care after retirement. It was in furtherance of this objective of a welfare state, which must provide for such medical care that the scheme was brought in force.” 9. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has not thrown challenge to the rejection order dated 17.3.2012 is not acceptable to this Court. The order at Annexure-9 dated 17.3.2012 though not challenged, is hereby quashed and set aside, in exercise of discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution, as the same is not tenable in the eyes of law. 10. As a sequitur to the aforesaid rules, regulations, guidelines and 4 judicial pronouncements, I hereby direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for reimbursement of medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 86,357/- incurred towards treatment of her late husband at Bellona Nursing Home & Diagnostic Centre, in accordance with law, taking into account the aforesaid judgments, as also the observations of this Court. The concerned competent authority under the respondent-BCCL shall also grant one opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner to produce all necessary materials in support of her case. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out within a period of eight weeks and the decision of the respondent-authorities be communicated to the petitioner. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed. R.Kr. (Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)