← Library
Madras High CourtWA(MD)/285/2018partly allowed

The Government Of Tamil Nadu v. G.Ravi Ubald Prakash

2018-02-21Honourable Mr Justice T. S. Sivagnanam,Honourable Mrs Justice R. Tharani3 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.02.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.THARANI W.A.(MD).No.285 of 2018 and C.M.P.(MD)No. 1733 of 2018

1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts, 2nd Floor, Panagal Building, Jeenish Road, Saidapet, Chennai - 15.

(Now the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts) Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai - 15) (Now at integrated Complex for Finance Department, Veterinary Hospital Campus, Nandanam, Chennai-35)

3. The Joint Director (in charge), Medical and Rural Health Services Kottar, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

... Appellants/Respondents 1,3&4 Vs.

1.G.Ravi Ubald Prakash ... 1st Respondent/Petitioner

2. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office VI, 5th Floor, P.L.A.Ratna Towers, No.212, Anna Salai, Chennai - 6.

...2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent PRAYER:This appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 27.02.2017 passed in W.P.(MD)No.10067 of 2016.

Prayer in WP(MD). 10067/ 2016 :

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3310/Ni2/2015 dated 02.02.2016 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to disburse the medical expenses of Rs.4,79,768/- within the period that may be stipulated by this Honourable Court.

For Appellants : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan Special Government Pleader For Respondent No.1 : Mr.Mahaboob Athiff for M/s.Ajmal Associates

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of this Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.) Heard Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and Mr.Mahaboob Athiff, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. 2.This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.10067 of 2016. The issue involved in this writ appeal is whether the claim for medical reimbursement for the surgery and the medical treatment undergone by the writ petitioner has to be considered or whether the same has to be rejected on the ground that the treatment availed by them was administered in a hospital, which is not accredited by the Government.

However, it is not in dispute that the very same issue was considered by this Court in several decisions, latest being a case of District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai v. J.Kanagam reported in W.P.(MD)No.843 of 2017, wherein the Division Bench of this Court, after taking into consideration the earlier decision in the case of N.Raja v. the State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2006) 3 CTC 394, and the judgment in W.A.(MD)No.1579 of 2016 dated 16.12.2016 dismissed the appeal filed by the Government. The only relief granted was to reduce the interest to 6% instead of 9%. Very recently, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of the Director of Pension, DMS Complex, Thenampet, Chennai-6 and 3 others v. B.Sarada in W.A.(MD)No.

1382 of 2017, considered all the decisions on the said point and dismissed the appeals filed by the Government by judgment dated 09.11.2017.

3.The learned Special Government Pleader sought to make a distinction with regard to the case by submitting that in case of

emergency, the Government order itself provides necessary protection for the persons to take treatment, but, however, in most of the cases, the procedure adopted is elective procedure i.e., surgery is pre-planned and therefore, for claiming the Insurance reimbursement, the person has to undergo such surgery in the Government accredited(network) hospital. In our considered view, we are not experts to decide as to which medical treatment requires emergency care and attention and these issues are best left to the medical professionals. The law is well settled by this Court in several decisions some of which are noted above. We find there are no merits in the appeal filed by the appellants. 4.Accordingly, the appeal fails and stands dismissed. However, we direct that the interest should be reduced to 6% instead of 9%. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts, 2nd Floor, Panagal Building, Jeenish Road, Saidapet, Chennai - 15.

(Now the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Treasuries and Accounts) Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai - 15) (Now at integrated Complex for Finance Department, Veterinary Hospital Campus, Nandanam, Chennai-35)

3. The Joint Director (in charge), Medical and Rural Health Services Kottar, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

Arul AE/JC/SAR2/08.03.2018/3P/4C W.A.(MD).No.285 of 2018 21.02.2018