SHRI MAHESH K. CHAUHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA NOTICE TO BE SERVED THROUGH, THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, COMMANDER WORKS ENGINEER, GARRISON ENGINEER ARMY AND AREA ACCOUNT OFFICER, PR. CDA (S.C)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT is a Mate Pipe Fitter working under respondent No. 3. On 12 -8 -2011 at about 5.00 pm he experienced chest pain and he was rushed to the Govt. General Hospital Bhuj where hew was diagnosed as a case of CAD, Triple Vessel Disease and recurrent moderate LV dysfunction etc. The Chief Medical Officer advised him for further management and investigation as such facilities were not available in that hospital. Considering the life threatening situation, instead of searching for an authorized hospital, he was rushed to Care Institute of Medical Sciences (CIMS) Ahmedabad where he was admitted as a case of cardiac emergency on the same day. On 13 -8 -2011 he underwent Angiography and Angioplasty and was discharged on 16 -8 -2011, incurring a total expenditure of Rs. 2,05,378/ -. The applicant submitted the bill for reimbursement to respondent No. 3 who with a recommendation forwarded it to respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 returned it vide Annexure -A. The bill was resubmitted on 30 -11 -2012 with a complete statement of a case. Again respondent No. 4 returned the bill vide Annexure -A/1 communication. On 16 -11 -2011, applicants condition became serious and he was taken to General Hospital, Bhuj. There he was referred to the Cardiology Specialist and was recommended for AICD implantation. Because of the financial difficulties he continued with medicines till 21 -12 -2011. When his condition was deteriorated on 21 -12 -2011, he was taken to CIMS Ahmedabad where he was diagnosed as a case of heart attack and AICD was implanted. He was discharged on 24 -12 -2011, having spent a cost of Rs. 3,83,827/ - for the second treatment. He submitted a request for medical reimbursement which was forwarded by respondent No. 3 with recommendation, but it was returned by respondent No. 4 with a communication marked as Annexure -A/2. Hence he has approached this Tribunal with the following reliefs:

(2.) HEARD Mr. M.O. Avira, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Joy Mathew, learned counsel for the respondents. Mr. M.O. Avira cited the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Gurcharan Singh v. Union of India & Ors. in W.P. (C.) No. 56/2008 dated 19 -1 -2010 and a decision of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Avtar Singh v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitaran Nigam (CWP) No. 16913 of 2005 dated 29 -3 -2006.

(3.) REFERRING to Annexure -A/3 records of the General Hospital, Bhuj (page Nos. 22 and 23 of the paper book) Mr. Avira submitted that on 12 -8 -2011, the applicant was in an emergent condition and hence he was advised for further investigation and management, as such facilities were not available in the General Hospital, Bhuj. He submitted that the document at page 35 of the paper book is a discharge summary indicating the details of the treatment undertaken at CIMS. Mr. Joy Mathew submitted that there is nothing to indicate in the said discharge summary that the applicant was in an emergent situation. I am not impressed by this contention because the applicants case had indeed been diagnosed by the Chief Medical Officer of the government hospital, Bhuj as a heart ailment. When it is a case of heart ailment, no reasonable man would think that treatment can be put off to a later occasion after finding out the government approved hospitals. However, it can be seen at page No. 36 of the paper book that against the item Indication in the Angioplasty Report the Doctor has recorded: CAD, Recent IPMI, Critical Lesion in LCX. The details of the stents used are also given in that report. A similar procedure was employed on the applicant at the same hospital on 13 -8 -2011 also as can be seen at page 37 of the paper book wherein also Critical Lesion RCA has been recorded stating that stent has been used at that time also. Page No. 41 of the paper book further shows that on 12 -8 -2011 the applicant was admitted as a case of acute cardiac emergency and that he required medical attention on urgent basis. Mr. Joy Mathew submitted that he could have chosen a private hospital near to Bhuj, instead of traveling 300 kilometers in ambulance within four hours. I find no merit in that contention because it was a time very critical for preservation of the life of the applicant. No wonder, the applicant was rushed to Ahmedabad the capital city well known for the best medical facilities than anywhere else in the State.