N.K.Mathavaraj Ganesan vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu
2021 Latest Caselaw 19623 Mad

                                                                           W.P.(MD)No.19578 of 2016

                             BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               DATED: 24.09.2021

                                                    CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

                                           W.P.(MD)No.19578 of 2016
                                                    and
                                          W.M.P.(MD)No.14117 of 2016

                 N.K.Mathavaraj Ganesan                                        ... Petitioner
                                                       vs.

                 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
                   represented by the Principal Secretary to Government,
                   Public Works (F1) Department,
                   Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai.

                 2.The Engineer-in-Chief,
                   Water Resources Department and
                       Chief Engineer (General)
                   Chepuak, Chennai-5.

                 3.The Finance (Salary) Department,
                   represented by the Principal Secretary to Government,
                   Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai.

                 4.The Director of Medical & Rural Health Services,
                   DMS Compound, Chennai -6.                                   ... Respondents




                 1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                             W.P.(MD)No.19578 of 2016

                 PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
                 issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records relating to the
                 impugned order of the first respondent dated 08.09.2016 in G.O.(D)No.251,
                 Public Works (F1) Department and to quash the same insofar as restricting the
                 claim of the petitioner to a sum of Rs.62,456/- against the claim of Rs.4,24,437/-
                 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to pay the entire claim of
                 Rs.4,24,437/- as reimbursement of medical bills to the petitioner with appropriate
                 interest within a reasonable time period to be fixed by this Court.


                                   For Petitioner  : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
                                   For Respondents : Mr.D.Linga Durai
                                                   Government Advocate
                                                         *****

                                                       ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified

Mandamus to quash the impugned order vide G.O.(D)No.251, Public Works

Department, dated 08.09.2016, passed by the first respondent and to direct the

respondents to pay the entire amount of Rs.4,24,437/-, as medical reimurbsement

to the petitioner.

2.Brief facts, that are necessary for the purpose of disposal of this Writ

Petition, are as follows:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.19578 of 2016

3.The petitioner was working as Superintending Engineer in Public Works

Department and the petitoner had put in more than 33 years of service and retired

from service on 31.12.2012. The first respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.174, dated

28.04.2008 regarding the implementation procedure of New Health Insurance

Scheme for employees of Government departments. The Government Order was

issued referring to previous Government Orders and the consent of third

respondent. As per the Government Order, the Government accorded sanction for

the implementation of New Health Insurance Scheme through a private Insurance

Company known as, “Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Limited” from

03.06.2008. This scheme provides for issue of photo identity cards to the

employees covered under the scheme by the third respondent. It also includes the

list of hospitals notified by the third respondent and the details of procedure and

treatments, for which the Government employee is entitled to apply. It is the

specific case of the petitioner that M/s.Appollo Speciality Hospital, Madurai, is

one of the notified hospitals covered under the schemes.

4.It is the case of the petitioner that he developed sudden cardiac problem,

while he was in service in Madurai and became unconsious. It is stated that his

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.19578 of 2016

family members took the petitioner to Appollo Speciality Hospital at Madurai.

The Doctors, who attended the petitioner, opined and advised the petitioner's

family that angioplasty with stunting should be immediately performed to save

the petitioner's life. Since the family members of the petitoner were informed that

a delay will lead to unwanted situation, it was decided to perform the angioplasty

procedure, that was suggested by the Doctors in the hospital. It was also stated by

the petitioner that the hospital authorities despite showing the photo identity card

issued by the third respondent, as the petitioner is covered under the New Health

Insurance Scheme, the hospital authorities demanded immediate payment as

advance. Hence, on the date of admission, ie., on 29.02.2012, a sum of

Rs.50,000/- was deposited by the petitioner and further a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-

was also paid on 01.03.2012. The balance amount was paid on 03.03.2012 and

the petitioner was discharged from the hospital on 05.03.2012. From the bill

produced by the petitioner, it is seen that the hospital authorities have collected a

total sum of Rs.4,24,437.92/- towards the treatment that was given to the

petitioner in the said hospital.

5.Stating that it is a cashless scheme and that the petitioner was not

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.19578 of 2016

supposed to pay any cash to the hospital when he gets treatment, the respondents

refused to pay any money to the petitioner towards medical reimbursement.

Hence, the petitioner filed earlier a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.14154 of 2012

before this Court challenging the letter of the Insurance Company and

consequently to direct the respondents to pay the amount, which was paid by the

petitioner towards the treatment. This Court disposed of the Writ Petition by

order, dated 11.12.2013, with the direction to the respondents to consider the

petitioner's representation, dated 23.04.2012 within a period of eight weeks.

Thereafter, in response to the petitioner's representation and in compliance of the

direction of this Court, the impugned order, dated 08.09.2016, vide G.O.Ms.No.

251, is passed. As per the impugned order, the first respondent decided to

reimbure a sum of Rs.62,456/- alone as against the medical bill for a sum of Rs.

4,24,437/-. As against the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

6.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decision of the

first respondent is contrary to several precedents of this Court while allowing the

Writ Petition for medical reimbursement in similar cases. It is seen that by the

impugned order, the petitioner's claim was considered under Medical Attendance

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.19578 of 2016

Rules for the treatment undergone by him. It is to be noted in the impugned order

that the quantum payable to the petitioner was arrived at on the basis of a report

of the Director of Medical and Rural Health Service, Chennai, which was on the

basis of a report of the Deen, Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital,

Chennai.

7.In the counter affidavit, the respondents submitted that the amount

sanctioned was within the scope and ambit of Tamilnadu Medical Attendance

Rules and that the medical claim for the petitioner was after consulting the Deen,

Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai and the Director of Medical

and Rural Health Services, as to the expenses that would have been incurred by

the petitioner herein, if he had taken treatment, as an inpatient in the Government

Hospital.

8.This Court is unable to accept the reasons stated in the counter affidavit

for restricting the petitioner's medical claim. It is not in dispute in this case that

the hosptial, in which the petitioner took treatment, is also one of the hospitals

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.19578 of 2016

recognized under the New Health Insurance Scheme. Nowhere in the counter

affidavit, it is stated that the treatmentthat was given to the petitioner is not within

the purview of disease/treatments or procedures covered under the scheme. When

the petitioner has produced medical bill, as it was raised and collected from the

petitioner by an institution, which is recognized by the respondents, it is not open

to the respondents to restrict the claim on the basis of a calculation on

assumption.

9.This Court in several judgments has ruled that treatment taken in private

hospitals for any ailment cannot be rejected on the ground that there was no

provision for reimbursement of the amount spent for taking treatment by the

employee. In this case, the claim for medical reimbursement was not on the

ground that the hospital was not included in the scheme or that the kind of

treatment undergone by the petitioner was not included in the list. It is to be

noted that the verdict of this Court in similar cases are not being followed by the

respondents. Majority of the cases relating to medical reimbursement are settled

only by judgments of this Court and the respondents did not care to implement the

judgments of this Court even on identical facts.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.19578 of 2016

10.The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Shiva Kant Jha vs Union

of India, reported in 2018 (5) MLJ 317, with reference to reimbursement of

medical claim under Central Government Health Scheme, specifically observed

that treatment availed in emergency circumstances to save life of Government

employee can be considered and the Government employee should be reimbursed.

This Court had also an occasion to deal with similar issue and the practical

difficulty of Government employees, who have undergone treatment during

service or after retirement. In most of the cases, the Insurance Company rejected

the claim simply because the treatment is not in a network hospital or on the

ground that the treatment undergone by the employee is not for the ailment found

place in the agreement entered into between Government and private Insurance

Company.

11.This Court in several cases has consistenly taken a view that irrespective

of the rejection of claim by the Insurance Company, the first respondent should

consider the claim for medical reimbursement under Tamil Nadu Medical

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.19578 of 2016

Attendance Rules. This Court also noticed that the Insurance Company used to

reject the claims on the ground that the policy is cashless and that the claimant,

who has paid the medical bill, cannot approach the Insurance Company for

reimbursement. It is stated in this case by the petitioner that the petitioner had

shown his photo identity card issued by the third respondent for insurance

coverage but the hospital, in which the petitioner was given treatment, insisted

the petitioner to deposit cash and collected the entire amount before discharging

the petitioner from the hospital.

12.In the case of Ali Akbar vs The Principal Secretary to the Government

and antoher, reported in 2018 (1) WLR 767, this Court pointed out the need for

the Government to issue clear guidelines including the direction to inform every

network hospitals that if the Government receives complaints from claimants that

money was demanded for admission or for giving treatment to the Government

servants, who are covered by General Health Scheme, then that hospital should be

removed from the network.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.19578 of 2016

13.The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment

rendered by a Honourable Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.2749 of

2018 dated 04.02.2019 in the case of The Government of Tamil Nadu and two

others vs K.Rajendran and two others. While dealing with a similar case, based

on the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court and earlier judgments of this

Court, the Division Bench has held that the Government employees are entitled to

get a medical facility or medical reimbursement as a matter of a right and no

fetters can be placed on such right being exercised in a fair manner. It is further

observed that since ultimate decision as to how a patient should be treated vests

only with the Doctor, who is an expert, and a very little scope is left to the patient

or his relatives to decide to choose the hospitals, the Government should

reimburse the medical expenses irrespective of the hospitals or the nature of

ailments for treatments. The learned Government Advocate could not cite any

other judgments to sustain the impugned order restricting the petitioner's claim

abruptly.

14.Having regard to the admitted facts and circumstances indicated above,

this Court is unable to sustain the impugned order and therefore, the impugned

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.19578 of 2016

order vide G.O.(D)No.251, Public Works (F1) Department, dated 08.9.2016, is

quashed and consequently, the first respondent is directed to pay the entire sum of

Rs.4,23,437/- after deducting a sum of Rs.62,456/- with interest at 4% per annum

to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy

of this order. The reduced interest is due to the COVID-19 situation in the State

and the financial constraints of State Government.

15.The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

24.09.2021 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes

cmr

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.19578 of 2016

To

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, The Government of Tamil Nadu, Public Works (F1) Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai.

2.The Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department and Chief Engineer (General) Chepuak, Chennai-5.

3.The Finance (Salary) Department, represented by the Principal Secretary to Government, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai.

4.The Director of Medical & Rural Health Services, DMS Compound, Chennai -6.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.(MD)No.19578 of 2016

S.S.SUNDAR, J.

cmr/tmg

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.19578 of 2016

24.09.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/