Sri Asit Kumar Das vs The State Of Tripura
2022 Latest Caselaw 622 Tri

                                    Page 1 of 5




                           HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                 AGARTALA
                               W.A. No.113/2019
Sri Asit Kumar Das, S/o-Lt. Abani Mohan Das, resident of Dhaleswar Natun
Pally, P.O.-Dhaleswar, Pin-799007, District-West Tripura, Agartala.
                                                        -----Appellant(s)
                                    Versus

1. The State of Tripura, through the Secretary to the Government of Tripura,
Department of Home, Civil Secretariat, P.O.-New Secretariat, Pin-799010,
Agartala, West Tripura.
2. The Director General of Police, Tripura, PHQ, PO-Agartala, PIN-
799001, West Tripura, Agartala.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Dhalai District, Jaharnagar, PO-Ambassa,
Dhalai, Tripura.
                                                         -----Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s)                   : Mr. C.S. Sinha, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)                  : Mr. Mangal Debbarma, Addl. G.A.

    HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY

       Date of hearing & judgment        : 4th July, 2022.

       Whether fit for reporting         : YES.

                      JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

(Indrajit Mahanty, C.J.)

Heard learned counsel Mr. C.S. Sinha appearing for the

appellant and learned Addl. Government Advocate Mr. Mangal Debbarma

appearing on behalf of the respondents-State.

2. Challenge in the present appeal is to an order dated 24.08.2018

passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of WP(C) No.41 of 2015

directing the respondents to examine the medical bills furnished by the

petitioner for taking treatment of his mother during the period from

14.11.2012 to 24.11.2012 in ILS Hospital, Agartala and after due

verification of the medical bills the same shall be reimbursed to the

petitioner along with interest @ 9% until the actual payment.

3. At the outset, learned Addl. Government Advocate Mr.

Mangal Debbarma appearing for the State, submits that bills raised by the

appellant-petitioner have been paid both prior to the judgment of this Court

as well as in due compliance of this Court's directions.

It appears from the record produced by the learned Addl.

Government Advocate that the State has complied with the directions issued

by this Court as noted hereinabove and a total of ₹6,41,189 has been

released in favour of the petitioner for treatment of his mother in ILS

Hospital, Agartala.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. C.S. Sinha contended

that certain expenditure incurred by the appellant for the treatment of his

mother at Kolkata had not been paid.

In this respect, learned counsel for the appellant was called

upon to point out from the documents on record which was the bill that he

claims to remain unpaid. Unfortunately, learned counsel for the appellant

could not point out any such bill and instead referred to the prayer made in

the writ petition, in particular a sum of ₹1,36,274. On going through the

order of the learned Single Judge as noted hereinabove, the issue before the

learned Single Judge has been dealt with by His Lordship in paragraph-8 of

the impugned order, which has been reproduced hereinbelow:

"8. This court can take a judicial notice that in the Govt. hospital there was no basic medical facilities available for the treatment as it was required for the patient and the only private hospital available is ILS Hospital, Agartala in the State of Tripura and the Government also realized that the ILS Hospital, Agartala has to be made a referral hospital in meeting out the emergent situation if arises in extending medical facilities to the dependant govt. employee which was later on approved as a referral hospital on 9th September, 2013 and at the same time list of private hospitals were approved as a referral hospitals of Kolkata and the patient was taken to Kolkata on the recommendations made by the Standing Medical Board referred to Seth Sukhlal Karmani Memorial(SSKM)/Rabindra Nath Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Sciences(RTIICS) Hospital, Kolkata where also the patient took treatment and all the medical bills as admissible under the medical rules have been reimbursed to the petitioner."

5. From the aforesaid facts, it clearly emerges that the State had

refused to reimburse the appellant-petitioner for expenses incurred by him

for the treatment of his deceased mother during her treatment at ILS

Hospital, Agartala purportedly on account of the fact that at the time of the

alleged incident and her treatment on 14.11.2012, the said hospital had not

been declared as a referral hospital by the State of Tripura, but this Court

found that the said hospital had been approved as a referral hospital on

09.09.2013 and taking the subsequent approval of the State Government into

consideration, this Court had directed the State to also reimburse the

expenses incurred by the appellant-petitioner at ILS Hospital, Agartala. This

direction of this Court has been complied with.

Further, the claim of the learned counsel for the appellant that

the petitioner had not been reimbursed for the expenses incurred by him for

the treatment of his mother at Kolkata is no longer res integra in view of the

findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge in paragraph-8 of the

impugned order as noted hereinabove. It is clear therefrom that all the

medical bills as admissible under the medical rules for the treatment of the

appellant's mother at Seth Sukhlal Karmani Memorial(SSKM)/Rabindra

Nath Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Sciences(RTIICS) Hospital,

Kolkata where the patient had undergone treatment have been reimbursed to

the petitioner. Therefore, the issue raised on behalf of the appellant has been

set at rest and was not subject matter of the original writ petition itself. It

appears, therefore, that the only issue that arose for consideration before the

learned Single Judge was the expenses that the appellant-petitioner had

borne for his mother's treatment at ILS Hospital, Agartala and since

subsequent to the decision of the learned Single Judge, the State have also

released all permissible dues of the appellant, nothing further remains for

consideration in the present appeal and accordingly, the appeal stands

dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further claims in the present

appeal for grant of compensation. In this regard, this Court expresses no

opinion in the matter, however, leaves it open for the appellant to seek

appropriate civil remedy, if he is so advised.

7. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY), J                         (INDRAJIT MAHANTY), CJ




Deepshikha