Delhi High Court
Wg. Cdr. Retd. V.K.Bhandari vs Maj. Gen. A. Srivastava & Ors. on 1 February, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: 8th January, 2010
Date of Order: 01st February, 2010
CONT. CAS (C) No. 659/2009
% 01.02.2010
Wg. Cdr. Retd. V.K.Bhandari ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. V.S.Tomar, Advocate
Versus
Maj. Gen. A.Srivastava & Ors. ... Respondents
Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
By this petition, the petitioner has invoked power of Contempt of this
Court on the ground of violation of order dated 17th December, 2008 passed by this
Court. Vide order dated 17th December, 2008 following directions were given to the
respondent:
"We, in view of the aforesaid thus, direct the respondents to
examine the case of the petitioner for reimbursement on account
of emergency medical treatment confined to the limit of approved
rates as prevalent in India, but subject to verification of the
medical documents."
2. The case of the respondent as stated in the counter affidavit is as
under:
"6. That notwithstanding the above, the case of the petitioner was
again taken up in view of orders passed by the Hon'ble Court on 11th
August, 2009. The Bumrungrad International Hospital, Bangkok
(Thailand), where the petitioner allegedly took treatment was contacted
by the respondents through e-mail dated 9th September 2009 asking for
confirmation of the treatment taken by the petitioner, payment details
made by the petitioner including as to whether it was done in cash or
partly through cash and partly through medical insurance cover etc.
Itemized bills were also sought from the hospitals. As no information was
received from the hospital, another e-mail was sent on 16th September,
2009 requesting the hospital to expedite the reply. The hospital was also
contacted telephonically on 23rd September, 2009 by the representative of
the respondents through ISD calls.
7. That on 26th September, 2009 the Bumrungrad International
Hospital, Bangkok (Thailand) has sent a reply through e-mail to the
respondents asking for an authorization letter from the petitioner for
sending the medical documents alongwith a copy of the patient's
passport/ID card/driving licence. Regarding payment method, it has been
stated that the concerned department has been contacted and once the
information is available the hospital will revert back to the respondents.
8. That in view of the above and in the absence of proper verification
the respondents are not in a position to examine the claim of the
petitioner for reimbursement of medical expenses in accordance with the
existing policy on the subject."
3. The position as stated by respondent is refuted by the petitioner. The
contention of petitioner is that hospital through e-mail tried to transmit the requisite
information to the respondent but e-mail box of the respondent was jam-packed/full.
The petitioner later on came to know that requisite e-mail had not reached and he
then visited Regional Office of ECHS in Delhi and handed over the relevant
information received by him through e-mail to Col. Binay Kumar.
4. Considering the response given by the respondent and the fact that
the respondent had not refused to consider the case of the petitioner, I find that there
was no willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. I find no force in the
contempt petition. The petition is hereby dismissed.
5. However, as and when proper verification is done, the respondent
shall examine the claim of the petitioner of reimbursing medical expenses in
accordance with existing policy on the subject.
February 01, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn
