Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J) - (1.) BY means of the present O.A., the applicant has sought the following reliefs: - - "(i) Quash action of the respondents to the extent whereby medical reimbursement claim of the applicant for Orthotopic Cadaveric Liver Transplantation has been restricted to Rs. 11,55,517/ - against the expenditure of Rs. 30,18,954/ - incurred by the applicant on the said surgery and full medical claim has not been reimbursed. (ii) Issue direction to the respondents to release the balance amount of Rs. 18,63,437/ - along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of submission of the claim on the entire amount of Rs. 30,18,954/ - also interest @ 18% per annum on the balance amount of Rs. 18,63,437/ - with effect from the date the medical reimbursement was sanctioned by the Competent Authority to the date of actual payment (iii) Grant any other relief deemed fit and proper to which the applicant is held entitled to." The facts which led to the filing of the present case are to be noticed first.
(2.) SH . Davinder Kumar Vasesi, the applicant herein had been admitted to the CMC Sector 17, Chandigarh on 26.5.2011 and he was referred to the Medanta Medicity, Gurgaon on 27.5.2011 for Liver transplant and he remained there till 11.6.2011. Due to non -availability of donor in Gurgaon, the applicant was admitted in Apollo Hospital, Chennai for liver transplant and liver was transplanted on 1.7.2011 for which he incurred an amount of Rs. 33,60,000/ -. On 4.11.2011, the applicant submitted an application for reimbursement of an amount of Rs. 30,18,954/ - to the Senior Deputy Accountant General (Administration) in the office of Principal Accountant General (Audit) Punjab, and Union Territory Chandigarh. Certain query was raised by respondent No. 1 vide communication dated 1.10.2012. It was clarified that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has directed vide their letter dated 23.5.2013 to take action in terms of letter dated 16.1.2013. The matter was again examined by respondent No. 3 who approved reimbursement of the amount claimed by the applicant and consequently respondent No. 1 vide its letter dated 6.6.2013 requested allocation of budget grant amounting to Rs. 30.19 lacs under the head 'Medical Treatment'. In total disregard to the fact that the applicant has actually incurred an amount of Rs. 33,18,954/ -, the respondents sanctioned an amount of Rs. 11,55,517/ - and no reason whatsoever has been communicated to the applicant for not acceding to his request for full reimbursement. Hence the O.A. In support of his claim, Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the action of the respondents in not reimbursing the full amount incurred by the applicant is totally illegal, arbitrary and colourable exercise of power and therefore, a direction may be issued to the respondents to release the remaining amount along with interest @ 18% p.a. There is no doubt expressed by the respondents about the liver transplant treatment having been taken by the applicant at Apollo Hospital and about the genuineness of the expenditure of huge amount of Rs. 33,18,954/ -, incurred by the applicant on treatment but relying upon the instructions, which have been issued subsequent to the operation of the applicant, the respondents rejected the claim of the applicant for full medical reimbursement. Learned Counsel argued that the subsequent instructions restricting the claim cannot be used as a tool to put the applicant in disadvantage as the instructions have to take effect prospectively only. He also argued that the applicant has been discriminated against vis   -vis. other similarly situated persons who have been allowed full medical reimbursement even after the issuance of the instructions aforementioned. An averment to this effect has been made in Para 5(ix) of the O.A.
(3.) UPON notice, the respondents put in appearance through Mr. Barjesh Mittal, learned Counsel and filed detailed written statement. It is submitted therein that respondent No. 3, who is Competent Authority to given financial sanction, raised an objection to the sanction of reimbursement of full amount and advised to reimburse the amount in terms of O.M. dated 16.1.2013. The claim of the applicant was, accordingly, considered and the amount for reimbursement was restricted as per the condition stipulated in O.M. dated 16.1.2013, which is liable to be upheld.;