Subrata Kar vs The State Of Tripura
2021 Latest Caselaw 218 Tri

                       HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                             AGARTALA

                          WP(C) 1121 of 2018


   Subrata Kar,
   S/o -Lt. Haran Chandra Kar,
   resident of North Badharghat, Madhyapara,
   P.S- A.D Nagar, Agartala, PIN-799003
                                                       -----Petitioner(s)

                                    Versus

1. The State of Tripura
   To be represented by Secretary, Home Department,
   Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Complex,
   Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN 799006
2. The Director General of Police,
    Government of Tripura,
    Firebrigrade Chowmuhani, Agartala,
    West Tripura PIN-799001
3. The Asstt. Inspector General of Police (HQR),
   O/o the Director General of Police,
   Government of Tripura, Firebrigrade Chowmuhani,
   Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799001
4. The Superintendent of Police, MTF,
   A.D Nagar Police Line, P.O-A.D. Nagar, PIN-799003
5. The Secretary,
   Finance Department,
   Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Complex,
   Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN 799010

                                                      -----Respondent(s)

   For Petitioner(s)         :   Mr. Kawsik Nath, Adv.
                                 Mr. P Roy Barman, Sr. Adv.
                                 Mr. Samarjit bhattacharjee, Adv.
   For Respondent(s)          :  Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, GA.
   Date of hearing &
   date of
   delivery of
   judgment and order         : 23.02.2021
   Whether fit for reporting : NO




                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
                       Judgment & Order (Oral)

Heard Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned GA assisted by Mr.

N. Chakma (Saha), learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

[2] The petitioner by means of this writ petition has urged this

court to quash the decision communicated by the letter dated

04.08.2017 under No.32108/ACCTS/(38)/PHQ/15(VOL-3) issued by the

Assistant IG of Police for Director General of Police, Tripura by rejecting

the medical bill (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) to the extent of

Rs.3,91,410/- [Rs.3,30,857/- (M. R. Bills) and Rs.60,553/-(TA Bill)].

[3] The petitioner has further urged this court to direct the

respondents to sanction the said amount as reimbursement of the

medical expenses with 12% interest w.e.f. 14.03.2017 till payment is

made. Short resume of fact that is required to be introduced at the

outset for the purpose of adjudication is that the petitioner had

suddenly felt severe chest pain in the midnight of 01.12.2016 and he

was shifted to AGMC and GBP Hospital for medical attendance. But the

petitioner could not be provided the required medical attendance in the

AGMC and GBP Hospital and as consequence thereof the petitioner was

shifted to ILS Hospitals, Agartala at about 5 am on the same day i.e.

01.12.2016. But the petitioner decided to be treated at some other

hospital outside the state.

[4] From the discharge summary issued by the ILS hospital, on

01.12.2016 at 9 am, it would be apparent that the petitioner was

suffering from Inferior Wall Myocardial Infarction. But it has been also

mentioned in the said discharge summary that the patient's family

wanted to take the petitioner outside Agartala for further treatment. So

the patient was being discharged as LAMA (Leave Against Medical

Advice). From that hospitals, the petitioner was shifted to NH

Rabindranath Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Sciences, where

the petitioner was advised coronary angiography with stenting to RCA.

The petitioner was shifted in the NH Rabindranath Tagore International

Institute of Cardiac Sciences on 01.12.2016 and he was released on

07.12.2016. Since the petitioner is working as Head Constable under

the state police organisation being in the category (Group C), after his

return to the state, he raised the medical reimbursement bill which is

ordinarily not supposed to be reimbursed inasmuch as a group C

employee is not borne in the medical reimbursement establishment

under Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944.

[5] However, the petitioner has resorted to a benevolent policy

of the state under the memorandum No. F.5(10)-Fin(G)/75-1 dated

09.08.2005 whereby the state government has created a class of

employees suffering from diseases and other serious diseases,

treatment of which is not available in the state in the government

hospital or the hospitals those provide the treatment to such category

of government employee under CGHS rates.

The relevant part of the said memorandum dated

09.08.2005 (Annexure R/10 to the reply filed by the respondents)

reads as follows:

When a Group-C/Group-D Government employee himself/herself suffering from disease other than cancer is referred to Medical Institution/Hospital to which he/she is referred to the cost of treatment in that Institution/hospital excluding the cost of journey is admissible for reimbursement. This benefit is not admissible in respect of any member of the family of such a Government employee.

[7] The petitioner for getting the reliefs as noted above has

referred to the above clause for getting the reimbursement. The bills as

raised by the petitioner had been returned as not admissible and that

decision, as stated earlier, has been challenged by the petitioner.

[8] In Surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in

(1996) 2 SCC 336, the apex court had occasion to observe that every

individual including the government employees has the right to take

steps in self preservation. In that case, the government employee was

referred to All India Institute of Medical Sciences and he had to wait. He

went to the Escorts Hospital in London for better treatment. The court

had sated inter-alia that it is the choice of the employee to go the

AIIMS or Escort or the Christian Medical College or Apollo Hospital

situated at different locations. Such selection is not wrong, but the apex

court has observed that his entitlement to be confined to the rate of the

referral hospital not beyond that. The said judgment has been followed

in several decisions throughout the country for purpose of medical

reimbursement where the person has attended a speciality hospital

which is not empanelled as the referral hospital on the ground that self

preservation of one's life is a necessary concomitant of the right to life

enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, fundamental in

nature, sacred, precious and inviolable. The importance and validity of

the duty and right to self-preservation is a species in the right of self

defence in criminal law. Centuries ago thinkers of this Great Land

conceived of such right and recognised it.

[8] Some references have been made to old Sanskrit scripture

which are avoided for obvious purpose inasmuch as in this case, the

state has clearly admitted in Para 5 of the reply that the GBP Hospital

had shifted the petitioner to the ILS Hospitals, Agartala which is

equipped with the treatment facility as was required by the petitioner.

But the petitioner, without any rhyme and reason or on own

assessment took the discharge from the said hospital at his own risk

and attended NH Rabindranath Tagore International Institute of Cardiac

Sciences. After taking the treatment in that hospital, he raised those

bills.

[9] Ms. Chakma (Saha), learned counsel appearing for the

state-respondents has raised two objection against the bills that there

was no formal reference by the Standing Medical Board which is

essentially required to reap benefit under the memorandum dated

09.08.2005 (Annexure-R/10 to the reply filed by the respondents).

From the clause as reproduced before, it is evident that the reference

be made and such references be made by the Standing Medical Board.

Ms. Chakma (Saha), learned counsel has further submitted that in

terms of the said benevolent policy as referred in the memorandum

dated 09.08.2005, the reimbursement of the travelling allowance has

been quite expressly excluded. Therefore, the petitioner by any

consideration is not entitled to get that travelling allowances.

[10] Having appreciated the rival contentions, the only question

that is left for consideration is that whether the petitioner is entitled to

reimbursement of the costs of medical treatment which he incurred in

NH Rabindranath Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Sciences. The

answer must be in negative. Having in tune with the decision of Surjit

Singh (supra), the petitioner may opt for taking the best facilities of the

medical treatment anywhere in the world. But the reimbursement will

be restricted to the cost of the referral hospitals. Since in the ILS

Hospitals, this facility was available and the petitioner had chosen to go

outside the state to have the medical attendance there, his

reimbursement will be restricted to the costs that would have been

incurred for the similar treatment in the ILS hospitals.

[11] At the requisition of this court, the respondents have placed

the office order dated 26.11.2014 under No.S-11045/36/2012-CGHS

(HEC). According to the respondents, the ILS Hospitals provide the

treatment in terms of the said office order. If that is so, the medical

reimbursement bill which shall be re-submitted by the petitioner be paid

in accordance to the said office order dated 26.11.2014. In any case, if

that office order is not applicable to ILS Hospitals, Agartala, the rate

from the ILS Hospitals has to be collected by the respondents and the

medical reimbursement be made in accordance with the said rate. Such

imbursement shall invariably be made within a period of three months

from the day when a copy of this order will be supplied to the

respondents.

In terms of the above, this writ petition stands allowed and

disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE

Dipak