M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) THE petitioner who is the widow of late Chandrakant Khalkho, has prayed for issuance of an appropriate direction upon the respondents for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred in the treatment of her late husband.
(2.) PETITIONER 'shusband was in the service of the State of Bihar and was posted as Medical Officer, in -charge, Cholera Hospital, Ranch/. In 1996 all of a sudden he fell ill and was treated by a doctor of Rajendra Medical College & Hospital, Ranchi. After treatment it was found that the petitioner 'shusband was suffering from renal problem and immediately required dialysis. Dr. S.S. Prasad who was the professor and head of the department of medicine, advised for immediate renal transplantation and pending renal transplantation he will have to undergo dialysis. On the, basis of the said certificate an application was filed on behalf of the husband of the petitioner before he Additional -cum -Special Secretary, Health Services, Govt. of Bihar for sanction of rupees two lacs so that kidney may be transplanted. The application was recommended by the doctor and it was further recommended that renal transplantation is not possible in Bihar and he was directed to rush to Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore or PGI Chandigarh. Petitioner 'shusband was subjected to examination by the Medical Board and the Board finally by letter dated 28.2.1996 recommended for grant of rupees two lacs for his treatment. In the meantime, the condition of the late husband of the petitioner was very much deteriorated and as per the advice, he had to rush to Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore and there he was treated and they issued a certificate that the total cost of theoraphy dialysis, blood transfusion and transplantation of surgery donar nephractomy post transplantation intensive care will cost Rs. 1,75,000/ -. The petitioner along with her deceased husband returned back to Ranchi for arrangement of the aforesaid amount and since he had already applied for sanction of the said amount before the State of Bihar, the petitioner was waiting to receive the amount. In the meantime the dialysis at RMCH was not in working condition and so it was advised by the attending doctor to get dialysis in a private Nursing Home and, accordingly, the deceased was put in dialysis in a private Nursing Home. Despite all the recommendations of the Medical Board the amount of rupees two lacs was not sanctioned by the respondents and for want of funds the husband of the petitioner ultimately died on 30.11.1996. After the death of her husband she submitted all the vouchers and bill incurred on the treatment of her husband at Ranchi which was duly signed by Dr. S.S. Prasad. The petitioner, thereafter, made several representations for payment of the estimated expenditures on the treatment of her late husband which was Rs. 1,50,000/ -. She was requested to send the entire bills which she did but inspite of several representations the amount was not paid. Ultimately the representation of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that payment of medical expenses incurred by the petitioner for dialysis is not permissible. The respondents, in their affidavit, have stated that in terms of the Govt. resolution dated 8.12.1994 the expenses incurred on Out Door treatment of the petitioner 'shusband is not permissible. Since dialysis is a part of O.T. treatment, the expenses incurred in course of dialysis cannot be reimbursed. It is stated in the affidavit filed by the Commissioner and the Secretary, Health department, Govt. of Bihar that although the expenses of dialysis is not reimbursable, he observed that the case of the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration of the Govt. It is stated that since the petitioner 'shusband belo 'nged to Jharkhand State and died while serving the State of Jharkhand, he sent all the papers to the Secretary, Health department, Govt. of Jharkhand. In the counter affidavit filed by the Govt. of Jharkhand it is stated that the application of the petitioner against the State of Jharkhand is not maintainable inasmuch as petitioner 'shusband was never an employee of the State of Jharkhand. He was the employee of unified State of Bihar and during his last phase of life he worked within the territory falling in the State of Jharkhand.
(3.) I have heard the counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. Allam, learned counsel for the State of Bihar and the learned SC II for the State of Jharkhand.;