Delhi High Court
Raghu Nath Kapoor vs Directorate Of Health Services & ... on 7 July, 2008
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7194/2007
RAGHU NATH KAPOOR ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Richa Kapoor, Advocate
versus
DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH
SERVICES & ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Zubeda Begum with Ms.Iram
Majid, Advs. for respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
ORDER
% 07.07.2008
CM No.6586/2008
1 Vide afore-noted application prayer is made for an
early disposal of the writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the parties state that the writ
petition may be heard and disposed of today itself.
3. The application accordingly stands disposed of.
WP(C) No.7194/2007
1. Rule was issued on 7.3.2008.
2. The Rule was preceded by a notice to show cause.
Response has been filed to the writ petition. Learned counsel
for the respondents state that the response to the notice to
show cause may be treated as a response to the Rule.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Instant writ petition has raised an issue pertaining
to reimbursement of medical expenses claimed by the
petitioner, who is stated to be a family pensioner under the
Government of NCT, Delhi. Petitioner claims that he has
complied with the necessary requirements of law pertaining to
reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by him and that
respondents 1 to 3 have illegally declined his request for
reimbursement of emergency medical expenses in the sum of
Rs.3,08,533/- on the ground that the claim has been filed
beyond the specified period of 3 months after the completion
of treatment.
5. According to the respondents, Rule 11 of the Central
Services (Medical Attendant) Rules require a claim to be
submitted within 3 months of completion of the treatment.
6. According to the petitioner, he had to incur the
expenditure on account of a sudden serious heart failure
coupled with multi-organ failure.
7. It be noted that the petitioner undertook the
treatment at Escorts Hospital.
8. Record of the writ petition shows that on the first
date of hearing i.e. 28.9.2007, while accepting notice in Court,
learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 sought time to take
instructions whether the delay in submitting the claim could be
condoned.
9. It was reported to this Court, a fact recorded in the
order dated 7.3.2008, that the relevant Rules do empower the
Heads of Departments under the Government of NCT, Delhi to
condone delay in the submission of claims and that in the
instant case the relevant Head of Department has not applied
his mind on the issue whether the delay ought or ought not to
be condoned for the reason the concerned officer rejected the
claim as barred by limitation at the inception stage.
10. Under the circumstances, without going into any
other further issue, the writ petition can be disposed of by
following either of the 2 methods. Firstly, to direct the Head of
the Department to consider the entitlement of the petitioner
for delay in seeking medical reimbursement to be condoned,
and if condoned, to consider the claim of the petitioner for
reimbursement on merits. Second course available could be to
condone the delay in filing the claim with a direction to the
Competent Authority to process the claim on merits.
11. Normally, Courts require the statutory authorities to
direct themselves on the issues which arise for consideration
and have not been considered by the authorities.
12. As noted hereinabove, the petitioner is a family
pensioner. It means that he claims pension on account of
service rendered by somebody else and that somebody else is
his wife. It is thus obvious that the petitioner is a widower.
The petitioner is aged 71 years. He had to undergo emergency
medical treatment when he suffered multiple organ failure
triggered by a weak heart. After successfully completing the
medical treatment, the petitioner would presumably be
physically weak and mentally exhausted. Under the
circumstances, it would not be proper to reject the claim of the
petitioner on account of limitation. Needless to state, rules of
Limitation and Procedure are intended to subserve the cause
substantive justice and not act as tripping stones. I accordingly
condone the delay in the petitioner seeking reimbursement of
the emergency medical expenses incurred by him.
13. The letter of rejection dated 31.8.2007 is quashed.
Mandamus is issued to the respondents to process the claim of
the petitioner on merits. Necessary decision would be taken
within 4 weeks from today on receipt of the order. Should the
claim be allowed, the money spent by the petitioner would be
reimbursed. Should the claim be denied, a reasoned order
would be communicated to the petitioner who would, in said
eventuality, be entitled to take action in accordance with law.
14. No costs.
15. Copy of this order be supplied dasti to learned
counsel for the parties.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
JULY 07, 2008
vg
