Bombay High Court
Divakar Narayan Dank And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 14 March, 2016
Bench: R.M. Borde
{1}
WP 6191.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.6191 of 2015
1 Divakar S/o Narayan Dank
Age: 62 years, occu: pensioner
R/o Prabhavati Nagar, Dist. Parbhani
2 Sau. Deepali w/o Divakarrao Dank
Age: 61 years, occu: household
R/o As above Petitioners
Versus
1
The State of Maharashtra
through: Secretary in the department of
Agriculture, Mantralaya, Fort,
Mumbai 32
2 The Director,
Extension Education,
Vasantrao Naik Marathawada
Krushi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani
Dist. Parbhani
3 The Vasantrao Naik Marathawada
Krushi Vidyapeeth
through: Its Comptroller,
Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani Respondents
Mr.A.A. Mukhedkar advocate for the petitioners
Mr.S.M.Ganachari, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No.1
Mr. S.G. Sangle, advocate for respondent No.2 & 3
_______________
CORAM : R.M. BORDE, & P.R. BORA, JJ
(Date : 14th MARCH, 2016.)
{2}
WP 6191.15.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: R.M. Borde, J)
1 Rule.
2 Heard. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up
for final decision at admission stage.
3 The petitioners are praying for direction to respondent No.3
University to reimburse the medical expenses incurred on account
of extending treatment to petitioner No.2, who is stated to be
suffering from cancer. The reimbursement of medical expenses
bills claimed by the petitioner is to the tune of Rs.2,38,485/-. The
petitioner No.1 claims that his wife i.e. Petitioner No.2 was
suffering from cancer and was required to take treatment at
Hospital situate at Aurangabad as well as Specialty Centre dealing
with cancer treatment at Hyderabad. The petitioner claims that
petitioner No.2 took part of the treatment at Indo-American
Cancer Institute & Research Centre, Hyderabad and was admitted
at the said centre as indoor patient for certain period. The claim of
the petitioner for reimbursement of medical expenses has been
rejected on the ground that the Indo-American Cancer Institute &
Research Centre, Hyderabad is not the centre recognized by the
State of Maharashtra under the Government Resolution and as
{3}
WP 6191.15.odt
such, reimbursement of the medical expenses in respect of
treatment secured at such private centre, according to the
respondents is not permissible. The respondents have also
objected to certain medical bills contending that there is over-
writing over the bills and as such are suspicious.
4 The petitioners place reliance on the Resolution issued by
the State Government on 29.7.1999 where under, it has been
prescribed that, the reimbursement of medical expenses in
respect of treatment secured as an indoor patient at the
Government or Government recognized hospital should be made,
irrespective of scale of pay receivable by Government servant
within the limit prescribed under Chart 'A' annexed to the
resolution. It is further prescribed under the Resolution that, so
far as specified five serious ailments are concerned, 100%
reimbursement would be permissible in the event treatment is
secured at a Govt. recognized hospital.
5 In the instant matter, it is not a matter of dispute that, the
petitioner No.2 has received treatment at a centre outside the
State of Maharashtra. According to the respondents, the said
centre is not recognized by the State Government.
{4}
WP 6191.15.odt
6 The case of the petitioner is governed by Resolution issued
on 19.3.2005, where under, it has been prescribed that, claim in
respect of reimbursement of the medical expenses shall be
permitted, irrespective of scale of pay receivable by Government
employee to the extent of 90% of the claim. Under the
Government resolution issued on 29.7.1994 as well as on
19.3.2005, there is no bar in respect of reimbursement of medical
expenses in the event medical treatment is received at private
hospital. However, reimbursement shall be within the monetary
limits prescribed under the aforesaid Government resolution.
7 In the instant matter, it is not a matter of dispute that
petitioner No.2 was suffering from serious ailment and received
treatment at Indo-American Cancer Institute & Research Centre,
Hyderabad. There also appears no serious dispute as regards
incurring of expenses for receiving the medical treatment. The
respondent has objected to five items enlisted in the claim i.e. five
bills in respect of purchase of medicines from Private Pharmacist
and those are in for the amount of Rs.3,862/-, Rs.2,619/-, Rs.
5,885/-, Rs.3,884/- and Rs.3,829/-. The respondents claim that
there is over-writing on these bills and as such, those are of
suspicious character. It would be open for the respondents to
{5}
WP 6191.15.odt
examine the genuineness of the aforesaid bills issued by the
private pharmacist and permit reimbursement as permissible
under the Policy. However, the claim of the petitioner excluding
the aforesaid five items/bills is required to be granted by the
respondents to the extent of 90% of the claim.
8 We direct the respondents to pay the amount as claimed by
the petitioner to the extent of 90%, excluding the five items/bills
referred to above, as expeditiously as possible and preferably
within a period of six weeks from today.
9 Rule is made absolute to above extent.
10 There shall be no order as to costs.
(P.R. BORA, J) (R.M.BORDE, J)
vbd
