Delhi High Court
Dr. B. P. Sinha vs Union Of India & Anr. on 24 November, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: November 24, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 10406/2017 & CMs 42513-14/2017
DR. B. P. SINHA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.K. Devesh, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Chiranjeev Kumar and Mr.
Mukesh Sachdeva, Advocate for respondent
No.1-UOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Petitioner aged about 78 years claims to be in the last stage of
Prostate Cancer and is said to have incurred medical expenses to the tune
of `4,98,374/- and had sought its reimbursement. As per Annexure P-6
(colly.), petitioner's claim for reimbursement of medical expenses has
been returned in original to petitioner to provide two clarifications as
contained at item Nos.6 & 7 thereof. Alongwith Annexure P-6 (colly.),
there is a calculation sheet in respect of petitioner's treatment expenses,
which, according to respondents, indicates that the medical claim payable
to petitioner is `2,23,727/-.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in response to
Annexure P-6 (colly.), petitioner had submitted a Reply of 27th October,
2017 (Annexure P-10) seeking reimbursement of entire amount claimed,
but neither there is any response from respondents nor has the admitted
amount of `2,23,727/- been paid to petitioner. Learned counsel for
petitioner submits that to meet the recurring medical expenses, petitioner
needs reimbursement of medical claim and so, instead of filing a
representation, petitioner has straightaway approached this Court.
3. Despite service of advance notice, none appears on behalf of
respondent No.2.
4. Upon hearing, it is deemed appropriate to direct second respondent
to pay the admitted amount of `2,23,727/- to petitioner within two weeks
from today. So far as the remaining amount claimed by petitioner is
concerned, learned counsel for petitioner submits that instead of making a
representation, it would be appropriate if second respondent is directed to
consider petitioner's reply/objections of 27th October, 2017 (Annexure P-
10) and if second respondent declines petitioner's claim for
reimbursement of remaining medical amount, then reasons for doing so
be provided and conveyed to petitioner, promptly.
5. In view of aforesaid, this petition and the applications are disposed
of with direction to second respondent to pay the admitted amount of
`2,23,727/- to petitioner within two weeks and to consider petitioner's
reply/objections of 27th October, 2017 (Annexure P-10) within three
weeks from today and in case petitioner's entire medical claim is not
reimbursed, then the reasons for not doing so, be spelt out and conveyed
to petitioner within a week thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the
remedies as available in law, if need be.
6. Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court
Master to petitioner's counsel.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 24, 2017
s
