V SELVARAJ Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FINANCE PENSION DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who joined as Basic Health Worker was subsequently promoted as Health Inspector and retired in the same capacity on 31.01.2003 on attaining the age of superannuation. He is a member of Tamil Nadu Government Pensioner's Health Fund Scheme from the date of retirement.

(2.) It is stated that after retirement, he was admitted in the Meenakshi Mission Hospital and Research Centre, Madurai on 25.05.2006 for the treatment of "BILATERAL INGUINAL HERNIA. (BOWEL LOOP + MESENTRY) PROSTATOEMGALY" and discharged on 27.05.2006, and in that regard, he has incurred an expenditure of Rs.33,692.50. It is stated that the nature of treatment comes under Gastro Enterology and the same is an approved one as per G.O.No.378, Finance Department, dated 13.10.2005. After discharge, the petitioner has submitted all the necessary certificates and made an application for reimbursement of the expenditure incurred to the extent of Rs.33,692.50. However, the application submitted by him came to be returned by the second respondent with an endorsement that the disease for which the petitioner has undergone treatment is not covered under G.O.No.378, Finance Department, dated 13.10.2005. In these circumstances, the present writ petition is filed challenging the said endorsement made by way of return, by the second respondent.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a member of the Scheme and he has also undergone the particular treatment. The expenditure incurred by the petitioner in respect of the treatment undergone by him for which the application for reimbursement has been made, is also not in dispute. However, the endorsement shows that the nature of treatment taken is not included in the list of treatments approved by the Government. That can never be a ground for the purpose of refusal of reimbursement of the medical expenditure incurred. The law is settled that it is not the nature of the treatment which can be refused by the Government or any other authority and it is ultimately for the concerned person as per the advise of the Doctors, treatments are given. In such view of the matter, it was in Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 1996 (1) S.L.R. 786, the Supreme Court has held that one has a right of self preservation of his life which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In that case, it was held that, for the purpose of taking treatment, the Government cannot expect a patient to stand in the queue of the hospital of its choice and it is for the concerned person to decide as to whether the treatment has to be obtained. As far as the nature of treatment as stated above and it is for the medical experts to decide and not for the Government as a matter of policy. Subsequently, it was in Paschin Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity and others v. State of West Bengal and another reported in 1996 (4) SCC 37, while reiterating the above stand of the Supreme Court, it was held that it is a matter of right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that the nature of treatment cannot be a ground for denial of the reimbursement of medical expenses. The Supreme Court in the case of General Assurance Society Ltd., v. Chandumull Jain & Anr. reported in 1966(3) SCR 500, which relates to the contract of insurance, also reiterated the said stand and it has been held consistently by this Court in a series of judgments. In such view of the matter, since the petitioner is a member of the scheme, he is entitled for the reimbursement, however subject to a maximum amount to which he is entitled as per the Scheme.