Delhi High Court
S.D.Kinra vs Uoi And Ors on 13 February, 2013
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 997/2012
S.D.KINRA
..... Petitioner
Through: petitioner in person
versus
UOI AND ORS
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. B.V. Niren, CGSC with Mr.
Prasouk Jain, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
ORDER
% 13.02.2013
The petitioner before this Court is a senior citizen who retired from
Government service on 30.6.1989. On being referred by CGHS Dispensary
to ENT Specialist, the petitioner was advised use of digital hearing aid. The
petitioner was asked to obtain three quotations, which he was able to obtain
with great difficulty. Those quotations were then handed over to CGHS
Dispensary, Janak Puri which forwarded those documents to the supplier
and also sought sanction of Rs.59,000/- for purchase of the hearing aid.
Despite sanction having been accorded and the petitioner having submitted
the documents to CGHS, Janakpuri claiming reimbursement, no payment
W.P.(C) 997/2012 page 1 of 3
was made to him. The petitioner, therefore, filed this petition, inter alia,
seeking reimbursement of the aforesaid amount of Rs.59,000/- with interest.
He also sought damages to the tune of Rs.5 lac for the harassment and
sufferings caused to him. He also sought directions that the local dispensary
may handle all the work relating to senior citizens/ pensioners, including
inviting quotations.
2. During pendency of this petition, the petitioner was paid Rs.58,900/-
towards reimbursement for hearing aid purchased by him.
3. In their reply, the respondents submitted that they have since modified
their procedure and issued new guidelines vide OM dated 21.3.2012. It has,
however, been admitted by the respondents that the cost of the battery is not
reimbursed to the CGHS beneficiary, who is advised to wear hearing aid.
4. We see no reason why the respondents should not reimburse the cost
of batteries as well to the CGHS beneficiaries who are advised wearing
hearing aids and are reimbursed the cost of the hearing aid purchased by
them. A hearing aid without batteries cannot work. In fact, the hearing aid is
an incomplete instrument unless fitted with battery. We find no logic in the
respondents refusing to reimburse the cost of batteries while reimbursing the
cost of hearing aid. To prevent any possible misuse of such a
reimbursement, the respondent may prescribe a uniform life for the batteries
and the costs of the subsequent batteries purchased by the CGHS
beneficiaries may be reimbursed only after the battery as initially provided
to the beneficiary has outlived its life. Of course, the beneficiary will have to
submit invoice showing purchase of the batteries. CGHS may also prescribe
W.P.(C) 997/2012 page 2 of 3
the upper cost in respect of the batteries to be fitted in the hearing aid so that
the reimbursement of the cost of batteries does not exceed a particular limit.
We ordered accordingly.
5. Another prayer made in this petition is that the job of inviting
quotations for purchase of hearing aids may be entrusted to the local CGHS
dispensaries and all the matters relating to senior citizens pensioners may be
handled at the level of local CGHS dispensaries. We direct the respondents
to consider these prayers sympathically, keeping in mind the inconvenience
to the senior citizens under the existing procedure, as pointed out in the writ
petition and pass an appropriate order in this regard within a period of three
months from today. The order so passed by the respondents in terms of this
direction shall be conveyed to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter.
The petition stands disposed of with above directions.
CHIEF JUSTICE
V.K. JAIN, J
FEBRUARY 13, 2013
RD
W.P.(C) 997/2012 page 3 of 3
