Ksh Kuber Singh vs State Of Manipur & 2 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 119 Mani

                                                                    Item No.20

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                             AT IMPHAL
                          WP(C) No. 164 of 2021


Ksh Kuber Singh                                    ....Petitioner

          -Versus-

State of Manipur & 2 Ors.                          ....Respondents

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR

04.04.2022 Heard Mr.Khagemba, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Mangilal, learned junior counsel to Mr.Lenin Hijam, learned Addl. A.G, Manipur for the State respondents.

[2] The petitioner is presently serving as Peon, Library Section in the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Imphal East, Manipur. On 13.03.2020, at around 6.30 PM, the petitioner developed mild chest pain and heaviness in his left chest besides feeling fatigue and, therefore in such emergent situation, the relatives of the petitioner, in order to save his life rushed him to the Imphal Heart Institute, Sagolband Moirang Leirak, Imphal, which is about 5 (five) Kms from his residence. Thereafter, petitioner was immediately admitted to the ICCU 14 at 7.40 pm and necessary emergency procedures were followed to save his life. The petitioner was discharged on 21.03.2020 and during his medical treatment the petitioner incurred expenditure of Rs.3,08,765/- (Rupees three lakhs eight thousand seven hundred

WP(C) No.164 of 2021 (o r a l) Page 1 and sixty five) only. He accordingly applied on 8.5.2020 for ex- post facto approval for treatment of Angioplasty emergency surgery at Imphal Heart Institute, which was forwarded by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Imphal East to the Chairman, State Medical Board, Manipur on 11.05.2020. The request for recommendation of the State Medical Board for ex-post facto approval in respect of the petitioner was rejected by the Director of Health Services, Manipur, Chairman, State Medical Board Manipur, by letter dated 1.2.2021 on the ground that the treatment taken by the petitioner at Imphal Heard Institute, Imphal Manipur, is not included in the list of Empanelled Hospitals, under the Government of Manipur. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition.

[3] Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that seeing the emergent condition of the petitioner, on 13.03.2020, the relatives of the petitioner, in order to save/preserve his life, rushed him to the Private Hospital, i.e. Imphal Heart Institute, Imphal, Manipur, which is about 5 (five) Kms away from his residence. Thereafter, he was admitted to the ICU and after performing all the emergency procedures, he was discharged on 21.03.2020.

[4] It is submitted that the petitioner was not taken to RIMS Hospital, Manipur inasmuch as it is about 7 (seven) Kms away from the residence of the petitioner and also because of the traffic condition in that area. Further, in the Private Hospital, the petitioner did not have to wait in the Casualty area for getting a ticket and thereafter get admitted in the ICU. It was in this emergent situation that the petitioners' relatives thought it appropriate to get him admitted at the Imphal Heart Institute.

WP(C) No.164 of 2021 (o r a l) Page 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the case of Surjit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors reported in (1996) 2 SCC 336 and also in the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) No.1016 of 2015.

[5] The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was not entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses for the reason that the Imphal Heart Institute, Imphal, Manipur, where the petitioner was given treatment, is not empanelled in the list of Hospitals recognized by the Government of Manipur. As the State Medical Board is following the relevant Government orders, it cannot go beyond the limits prescribed by the relevant Rules and if the claim of the petitioner is allowed or the relief sought by the petitioner is granted, the purpose of constituting the State Medical Board for examination of the patient's condition for granting or not granting approval of medical reimbursement shall be frustrated and there shall be no meaning/purpose for constitution of the Medical Board by the Government under the Central Service (Medical Attendance) Rules.

[6] Learned counsel for the State respondents also places on record, Appendix VIII of the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944, which deals with reimbursement in relaxation of Rules in emergent cases and also places reliance in the case of Hopes Textiles Ltd & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors reported in 1995 (Supp) 3 SCC 199 to contend that a writ of mandamus can be issued to a statutory authority to compel it to perform its statutory obligation but the same cannot be issued to compel him to pass an order in violation of a statutory provision and also in the judgment dated 27.02.2003 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in the case of Ramya Wines Vs Government of

WP(C) No.164 of 2021 (o r a l) Page 3 Andhra Pradesh & Ors to contend that a policy decision of the Government cannot be interfered by Court of judicial review unless it violates the Constitutional or legal provisions.

[7] I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

[8] The illness of the petitioner, his admission to the ICU in the Imphal Heart Centre, Manipur and also the Medical Certificates enclosed by the writ petitioner is not disputed by the respondents. The only ground of the respondents in refusing ex- post facto approval for recommendation of the State Medical Board is that the Imphal Heart Institute, Manipur is not included in the list of empanelled hospitals under the Central Services (M.A) Rules of the Manipur Government and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to reimbursement of the amount incurred during his treatment.

[9] Appendix VIII dealing with the reimbursement in relaxation of Rules in emergent cases of the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 has been considered by this Court. A perusal of the same indicates that in emergennt cases involving accidents, serious nature of disease etc, the person/persons on the spot may use their discretion for taking the patient for treatment in a private hospital in case no Government or recognized hospital is available nearer than the private hospital.

In the present case in hand, the Imphal Heart Institute was located 5 (five) Kms away from the residence of the petitioner and the RIMS Hospital, which is recognized/empanelled hospital of the Government of Manipur was located at about 7 (seven) Kms away from the residence of the petitioner. Considering the emergency condition of the petitioner, the relatives had taken him to the nearest private hospital. In such a situation, the Appendix

WP(C) No.164 of 2021 (o r a l) Page 4 VIII of the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 is in favour of the petitioner inasmuch as the RIMS Hospital was located farther away from the Imphal Heart Institute, Manipur.

This Court has considered the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the State respondents however, on consideration of the same there are found not applicable to the case in hand.

[10] Self preservation of one's life is the necessary concomitant of the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India fundamental in nature, sacred, precious and inviolable, which has been propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surjit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors (supra) and the relevant portion reads as under:

"12. The appellant therefore had the right to take steps in self-preservation. He did not have to stand in queue before the Medical Board, the manning and assembling of which, barefacedly, makes its meetings difficult to happen. The appellant also did not have to stand in queue in the government hospital of AIIMS and could go elsewhere to an alternative hospital as per policy. When the State itself has brought Escorts on the recognized list, it is futile for it to contend that the appellant could in no event have gone to Escorts and his claim cannot on that basis be allowed, on suppositions. We think to the contrary. In the facts and circumstances, had the appellant remained in India, he could have gone to Escorts like many others did, to save his life. But instead he has done that in London incurring considerable expense. The doctors causing his operation there are presumed to have done so as one essential and timely. On that hypothesis, it is fair and just that the respondents pay to the appellant, the rates admissible as per Escorts.

The claim of the appellant having been found valid, the question posed at the outset is answered in the affirmative. Of course the sum of Rs.40,000 already paid to the appellant would have to be adjusted in computation. Since the appellant did not have his

WP(C) No.164 of 2021 (o r a l) Page 5 claim dealt with in the High Court in the manner it has been projected now in this Court, we, do not grant any interest for the intervening period even though prayed for. Let the difference be paid to the appellant within two months positively. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There need be no order as to costs."

The relatives of the petitioner had taken the right decision for preservation of the life of the petitioner inasmuch as the Imphal Heart Institute was nearer to the residence of the petitioner and petitioner need not have stood in queue as is done in Government hospitals.

[11] In the facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed hereinabove, the letter dated 1.2.2021 written by the Director of Health Services, Manipur, Chairman, State Medical Board, Manipur is set aside and quashed. The respondents are directed to reimburse the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner to be calculated based on the rates approved by the State Government in respect of the items listed therein or at the rate being charged by a private hospital recognized/approved by the State Government, within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court.

The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. No cost.

                                                        JUDGE

Priyojit

                                             CHONGNUN     Digitally signed by
                                                          CHONGNUNKIM GANGTE

                                             KIM GANGTE   Date: 2022.04.06 13:23:34
                                                          +05'30'




WP(C) No.164 of 2021 (o r a l)                                          Page 6