Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs Yogesh Nirala And Ors. on 30 October, 2015
Author: G. S. Sistani
$~59
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10157/2015
% Judgment dated 30th October, 2015
UNION OF INDIA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. V.S.R. Krishna with Mr. A.K.
Shrivastava, Advocates
versus
YOGESH NIRALA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. M.R. Singh with Mr. Badal Sharma,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
CM.APPL25096/2015(delay in re-filing)
1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 75 days in re-filling the
writ petition is condoned. The application is allowed.
W.P.(C) 10157/2015
2. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the Central Administrative
Tribunal (hereinafter referred to for short as „the Tribunal‟) dated
18.02.2015, by which an OA filed by respondent no.1 herein was allowed.
3. We may notice that the respondent had made a claim of Rs.7.0 lakhs on the
petitioner for expenses incurred by him for the treatment of his son, who
was suffering from Duchene Muscular Dystrophy(DMD). The respondent
had made a claim with respect to Rs.7.00 lakhs spent by him for treatment
of his son who underwent Stem Cell therapy at a private hospital in Pune.
The claim of the respondent was rejected as the treatment was from a non-
government hospital and without prior approval and not being an
emergency case.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has
exceeded his jurisdiction and not taken into account the rule position and
has allowed the request of the respondent.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the
matter in detail as also examined the judgment passed by the Tribunal.
6. The facts which emerge are that the son of the respondent was detected
suffering from serious disease of Duchene Muscular Dystrophy(DMD)
from his birth. He developed the following deficiencies:
"1. Bilateral Tendoachillis Tightness
2. Bilateral Equinusvarus Deformity (40-45 degree)
3. Bilateral ilipsoas Tightness
4. Bilateral Rectus femoris Tightness
5. Bilateral adductors
6. Bilateral Finger Flexor
7. Poor Balance
8. Bilateral Pes Planus
9. Kyphoscoliosis
10. Bilateral FFD of knee (50-55 degree)"
7. When the child was about three years of age, his parents found that his
growth was not normal. The respondent approached the Central Hospital,
Northern Railway, New Delhi for diagnosis and treatment and thereafter,
case of the son of the respondent was referred to All India Institute of
Medical Sciences(AIIMS), who diagnosed the deceased as DMD. As the
respondent found that the treatment was not satisfactory, he consulted
Santosh Medical & Dental Hospital, Ghaziabad and Rajpur Orthopaedic
Centre, Bombay. He then approached Chaitanya Hospital and Nursing
Home, Pune and got his son admitted from 17.11.2011 to 29.11.2011. The
son of the respondent was administered Stem Cell doses for the treatment
for which Rs.4.0 lakhs were charged and subsequently, for further
treatment Rs.3.0 lakhs was charged.
8. The Tribunal examined the entire documents available on record and
reached a conclusion that in fact, the respondent‟s son was suffering from
DMD and Rs.7.00 lacs were spent by the respondents for the treatment of
his son, who has since died. The learned Tribunal has also noted that
initially the respondent had approached the Central Hospital, Northern
Railway and AIIMS for treatment. What has prevailed in the mind of
Tribunal is that no parent could have left his child to die and he wanted to
avail to every possible treatment for his child.
9. We find no infirmity in the reasoning of the Tribunal and thus, dismiss the
writ petition, except to state that the present case would not be treated as a
precedent. The amount be released in favour of the respondent within four
weeks from today. No costs.
CM.APPL 25066/2015(stay)
10. Application stands dismissed in view of the order passed in the writ
petition.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
OCTOBER 30, 2015
pst
