- (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) BY the impugned order dated 27.8.2010(Annexure -3) issued by the Technical Secretary to Executive Director(MS) / Deputy C.M.O.(HQ) the claim for medical reimbursement for treatment of wife of the petitioner has been refused on the ground that petitioner has not obtained any prior approval from the company and such type of treatment expenditure is not admissible as per the C.I.L Medical Attendance Rule. Petitioner's case is that his wife Smt. Nutan Lala while at Ranchi during the course of her stay with her son who was studying in Ranchi met with an accident while riding on motorcycle and got head injury on 13.4.2010. She was immediately rushed to Nagarmal Modi Seva Sadan, Ranchi where she remained for about two days and thereafter, she was shifted to Appollo Hospital,Ranchi where she was admitted in Intensive Care Unit. After remaining in hospital for certain time for more than a month she was released after being cured. The treatment incurred expenditure of Rs. 1,86, 110/ -. The petitioner, thereafter, made a claim for reimbursement before his controlling officer which was duly forwarded by the letter dated 7.9.2010 to the Director Personnel, BCCL enclosing relevant vouchers and prescriptions. However, the respondents have denied the medical reimbursement simply on the ground that petitioner has failed to obtain prior approval of the company and such treatment expenditure was not admissible under the Medical Attendance Rule of CIL. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in case of accident which the petitioner's wife has met, there was no time left for seeking prior approval for urgent treatment which otherwise could have proved fatal to the injury. In such circumstances, the said ground made out for rejection of petitioner's claim is wholly arbitrary and suffers from non application of mind. It is further submitted that the condition in which the petitioner's wife was rushed to the hospital for treatment after having sustained head injury during the accident do suggest that the respondents should have considered the case of the petitioner as the case of post facto sanction. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in similar circumstances, in case of treatment in private hospital such as Escort Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi, this Court in W.P.L. No. 1422 of 2005 in case of another employee working under the same respondent - BCCL have been pleased to allow the writ petition by directing reimbursement of the entire amount. The challenge to the same in L.P.A. No. 526 of 2005 as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Civil) No. 9966 of 2006 has also failed. Similar orders have been relied upon by the petitioner as contained in Annexure -9 , 10 and 11 respectively in W.P.S. No. 1758 of 2006, W.P.S. 1792 of 2011 and L.P.A. No. 254 of 2007 arising out of same W.P.S.1758 of 2006. In such circumstances, petitioner has assailed the impugned order. He has submitted that the right to medical treatment of an employee in service Rules is guaranteed under the statute as also it is concomitant right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Consumer Eduction and Research Centre and others Vrs. Union of India & others reported in AIR 1995 SC 922 wherein it has been held that right to be treated in such emergent situation is also covered under the right to life under Article 21 under the Constitution of India.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submitted that the Medical Attendance Rule stipulates certain conditions which are required to be complied before such case of reimbursement is allowed upon the expenditure where the employee or his dependent has been treated in private hospital, which is pre -requisite. There are other formalities required to be observed such as permission to carry on continuous treatment beyond 30 days by the competent Authority i.e. the Company's Doctor, which has not been done in the instant case. The respondents, however have not been able to offer satisfactory answer as to why in the cases of accident where immediate treatment is necessary in order to save the life of the injured, the matter could not have been considered as post facto sanction in the nature of approval.;