Manipur High Court
Shri Nepram Sonykumar vs The State Of Manipur Represented By The ... on 16 August, 2024
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Digitally signed by
JOHN JOHN TELEN KOM
TELEN KOM Date: 2024.08.23
15:12:52 +05'30'
Item No.1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C)No.594 of 2023
Shri Nepram Sonykumar, aged about 40 years, S/o Nepram
Saratchandra Singh, a resident of Sagolband Nepra Menjor Leikai PO &
PS Lamphel, Manipur-795001.
...Petitioner
- Versus-
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Principal Secretary, Health
and Family Welfare, Government of Manipur, Manipur Secretariat,
Old Block, Babupara, Imphal-795001.
2. The Director of Health and Family Welfare Services, Government of
Manipur, Medical Directorate, Lamphelpat, Imphal, Manipur-795001.
3. The Chairman, State Medical Board, Government of Manipur, Near
RIMS, Lamphelpat, Imphal, Manipur-795001.
...Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
ORDER
(Oral)
16.08.2024.
[1] Heard Mr. I. Denning, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Th. Sukumar, learned GA for the State respondents.
[2] The petitioner has approached this Court for directing the
respondents to grant ex-post facto approval of the State Medical Board
for medical reimbursement with respect to the treatment of his infant
baby in the Mother's Care Children Hospital and Research Centre,
Imphal.
[3] The petitioner who is a judicial officer, has twin baby boys
at the Maipakpi Maternity and Child Hospital, Imphal on 29.12.2019 and
one of the twin has developed breathing problems and the doctors
referred the child to the Hospital where ventilator support in the Neonatal
Intensive Care Unit is available.
[4] Vide impugned order dated 05.07.2022, Director of Health
Services, Manipur informed the District & Sessions Judge, Imphal East
that the approval of the ex-post facto sanction for treatment of the
petitioner's sons at Mother's Care Children Hospital & Research Centre
cannot acceded as the Hospital is not in the list of empaneled hospitals
under the Government of Manipur.
[5] Mr. I. Denning, learned counsel for the petitioner draws the
attention of this Court to the Memorandum dated 06.07.2018 issued by
the Director of Health Services, Manipur where ex-post facto approval
for treatment of Government employee who was working in the office of
the Superintendent of Police, Senapati District, Manipur for treatment in
the same Mother's Care Children Hospital and Research Centre,
Sagolband, Imphal was released.
[6] Mr. Th. Sukumar, learned GA referring to para Nos. 4 , 6 &
9 of the counter affidavit submitted that since the Mother's Care Children
Hospital and Research Centre, Imphal is not in the approved list of
Government Hospitals published by the State Government, the Director
of Health Services, Manipur has rejected the claim for ex-post facto
approval with respect to the petitioner's sons and the order is in terms of
the policy of the State Government.
[7] Mr. I. Denning, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiva Kant
Jha Vs. Union of India reported in (2018)16 Supreme Court Cases 187
wherein it was held that the medical benefits for the Government
employees cannot be denied on the sole ground that the Hospital is not
approved by the State Authority and the relevant para is reproduced
herein below:
"17.It is a settled legal position that the Government employee
during his life time or after his retirement is entitled to get the
benefit of the medical facilities and no fetters can be placed on his
rights. It is acceptable to common sense, that ultimate decision as
to how a patient should be treated vests only with the Doctor, who
is well versed and expert both on academic qualification and
experience gained. Very little scope is left to the patient or his
relative to decide as to the manner in which the ailment should be
treated. Speciality Hospitals are established for treatment of
specified ailments and services of Doctors specialized in a
discipline are availed by patients only to ensure proper, required
and safe treatment. Can it be said that taking treatment in
Speciality Hospital by itself would deprive a person to claim
reimbursement solely on the ground that the said Hospital is not
included in the Government Order. The right to medical claim
cannot be denied merely because the name of the hospital is not
included in the Government Order. The real test must be the
factum of treatment. Before any medical claim is honoured, the
authorities are bound to ensure as to whether the claimant had
actually taken treatment and the factum of treatment is supported
by records duly certified by Doctors/Hospitals concerned. Once, it
is established, the claim cannot be denied on technical grounds.
Clearly, in the present case, by taking a very inhuman approach,
the officials of the CGHS have denied the grant of medical
reimbursement in full to the petitioner forcing him to approach this
Court."
[8] The learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention
of this Court to the order dated 25.04.2016 passed by Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court in WP(C)No.1016 of 2015 where treatment taken up
in Shija Hospitals & Research Institute in the non-recognized category
was allowed on the ground that self preservation of one's life is the
necessary concomitant of the right of life enshrined in Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and relevant para is reproduced herein below:
"8. Thus, it appears in no uncertain term it has been spelt out that
self preservation of one's life is the necessary concomitant of the
light to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India,
fundamental in nature, sacred, precious and inviolable and for his
self preservation one has right to take steps accordingly. On need
not to stand in queue before the Medical Board, the manning and
assembling of which makes its meeting difficult to happen and
need not stand in queue in Government hospital and could go
elsewhere to an alternative hospital. The principle laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has been followed by this Court also in the
case referred to hereinabove:
[8] In another order dated 24.08.2020 passed by Learned Single
Judge in WP(C)No.180 of 2014 where treatment taken up in non-recognized
hospital is also permitted by this Court on the ground that similar orders
have been passed by this Court and there is no reason to differ.
[9] This Court has considered the materials available on record
and the decisions relied by the parties.
[10] On perusal of annexure A/7 i.e. O.M. dated 06.07.2018 issued
by the Director of Health Services, Manipur, it seen that medical
reimbursement for the employee of the office of Superintendent of Police
Senapati for treatment taken up in Mother's Care Children Hospital and
Research Centre, Sagolband Moirang Leirak, Imphal was allowed.
However, in the present case, the treatment taken up in the same hospital
is rejected on the ground that the concerned hospital is not in the empaneled
list of the State Government.
[11] This Court is of the view that for the same hospital, the State
Government cannot have different stands to its employees and the stand of
the State Government cannot be sustained in terms of the decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiva Kant Jha Vs. Union of India
supra. In view of the settled position of law, this Court sets aside the
impugned letter dated 05.07.2022 issued by the Director of Health
Services, Manipur to the District & Sessions Judge, Imphal East
intimating about the rejection of the claim of sanction of the expenses for
medical treatment of the child of the petitioner at Mother's Care Children
Hospital & Research Centre Imphal. Accordingly, the respondents are
directed to release the admissible expenses as per law within a period of
3(three) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing
which, an interest rate of 9% per annum shall be payable.
[12] Furnish a copy of this order to the learned counsel
appearing for the parties.
[13] Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the
Director of Health Services Manipur for information and necessary
compliance.
JUDGE
John Kom
