Delhi High Court
Chaman Lal vs Uoi, Ministry Of Defence, South ... on 22 October, 2009
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
i.11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 22nd October, 2009
+ W.P.(C) 11603/2009
CHAMAN LAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person
versus
UOI, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Barkha Babbar, Advocate
and Wg.Cdr. R.Mohanty, Joint
Director, Medical Services, Air
Head Quarters, for the
respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest? No
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (ORAL)
CM No.11436/2009
Since the writ petition is being disposed of today itself,
the above-captioned application which seeks interim relief is
dismissed as infructuous.
WP(C) No.11603/2009
1. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed in Court. The same is
taken on record.
2. Rule DB. Heard for disposal.
3. The petitioner was diagnosed with Non Hodgkin's
Lymphoma i.e. Cancer and was successfully treated at the
Army Hospital at Delhi.
4. Chemotherapy had the desired results. The growth of
Cancer Cells has been arrested and the petitioner is, as of
today, disease free.
5. Being posted at Delhi for around 9 years, outliving the
normal period during which a person is ordinarily to be
posted at a place, the petitioner was posted out to Mumbai
and as per his request was issued a transfer posting order,
posting him at Pune.
6. The present writ petition was filed making various
grievances but limiting the relief to only one prayer; being
that, a direction be issued to the respondents to post the
petitioner to a place where all investigative facilities exist
keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is having loco
motor disability of the lower extremity.
7. The petitioner who appears in person states that he
has to undergo a whole body PET/CT scan and that the said
facility is not available at the Army Hospital in Pune. The
petitioner states that although other diagnostic facilities are
available at the Army Hospital in Pune, PET/CT scan facility
not being available he would be required to visit Delhi with
periodic intervals and keeping in view the loco motor
disability as also the fact that he needs an attendant to
move about; the authorities issuing only one railway
warrant, on account of extreme hardship to him, directions
should be issued to the respondents to re-post the petitioner
at Delhi.
8. Wing Commander R.Mohanty, a medical expert,
informs us, with reference to Annexure R-1, that the PET/CT
Scan is not a part of the treatment to be given to the
petitioner. The scan is to obtain images after injecting a
dye to see whether the Lymph Nodes are in order as also
whether any Cancer Cells are forming in the body. With
reference to Annexure R-1 it is pointed out to us that said
scan is being done on yearly basis; the last scan was
conducted on 27.7.2009 and the one previous thereto was
conducted on 9.7.2008. With reference to Annexure R-1 it is
pointed out that the opinion expressed is that with
reference to the previous scan no abnormality was noted.
9. In a nut-shell, respondents state that all facilities to
treat the petitioner for the disease suffered by him are
available at the Army Hospital at Pune and that the PET/CT
Scan which requires to be done to detect any abnormality is
on a yearly basis and thus the petitioner should be
continued to be posted at Pune.
10. Wg.Cdr. R.Mohanty informs us that the Army Referral
Hospital at Delhi is already over-worked and there are many
crying cases requiring posting at Delhi for continuous
medical treatment.
11. Undoubtedly, the petitioner requires a sympathetic
consideration of his problem, but we cannot at the same
time, lose track of the fact that there are many others who
require medical treatment at Delhi.
12. The petitioner does not require any further medical
treatment at Delhi. Whatever medicines have to be given to
the petitioner can be provided for at Pune. Specialist
doctors pertaining to the medical infirmity of the petitioner
are stationed at Pune.
13. The only problem is of a yearly PET/CT Scan, for which
at present the requisite facilities are not available at Pune.
Thus, the petitioner requires one movement a year to visit
the place where said facility is available.
14. It is not a hardship of a kind which cannot be mitigated
by passing appropriate directions.
15. In our opinion, the problem of the petitioner can be
redressed by directing the respondents to refer the
petitioner to a private hospital in Pune where the requisite
diagnostic facility i.e. PET/CT Scan facility exists. In case no
such hospital is available at Pune, then in said circumstance,
the petitioner can be referred to the nearest place, be it
private, where such a facility is available and in such
eventuality, keeping in view the loco motor disability of the
petitioner, a railway warrant can be issued for the to-and-fro
journey not only to the petitioner but even for one escort.
16. Declining relief as prayed for, we dispose of the writ
petition directing the respondents that whenever required,
petitioner be referred to a private hospital in Pune where
the requisite diagnostic facility of PET/CT Scan exists. In
case no such hospital is available at Pune, then in said
circumstance, the petitioner be sent to the nearest place
(even private) where such a facility is available and in such
eventuality a railway warrant be issued for the to-and-fro
journey to be undertaken by the petitioner as also for one
escort.
17. No costs.
18. DASTI.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
SURESH KAIT, J.
October 22, 2009/rk
