PATNA, India, July 7 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on July 1:
Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is the widow of the erstwhile employee who has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court on being aggrieved with the letter bearing Memo No. 24/2007/84 dated 25.01.2021(Annexure-8), whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner came to be rejected for payment of medical reimbursement to the tune of Rs.6,96,594/- which amount was spent in the right side Cochlear Implant of the petitioner's husband. The impugned order came to be passed based upon the notification of the Health Department bearing No. 946 (14) dated 14.08.2015 as also in the light of the opinion given by the Finance Department, Government of Bihar.
3. The husband of the petitioner, late Hamid Hussain was posted at the relevant time as Urdu Translator in Chakia Block, in East Champaran. On account of developed complication in the ear, he was medically advised for Cochlear Implant and thus he immediately rushed to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, where he was advised for right side Cochlear Implant. The Cochlear Implant was done during 19.01.2015 to 30.01.2015 and thereafter the husband of the petitioner was discharged. The entire expenses of Cochlear Implant came to Rs.6,96,594/-; the bills of which was duly submitted by the husband of the petitioner to his controlling authority, who vide his letter dated 02.05.2015 forwarded the same to the respondent no. 5 for necessary action. Certain query and correspondences have been made but finally the claim of the husband of the petitioner for medical reimbursement did not finalise, in the meanwhile, the husband of the petitioner died on 05.04.2017. After the death of the husband, the petitioner continued with the claim for medical reimbursement but finally it did not find favour and came to be rejected which is impugned herein.
4. Mr. Ali Muqtadir Ahmad, learned Advocate for the petitioner after taking this Court through Memo No. 946(14) dated 14.08.2015 has contended that the Government of Bihar in the Department of Health by way of a notification in the form of guidelines introduced Clause 6(iii) which provides for consent of Finance Department if the amount is rupees five lakhs and above. Specific prescription has also been incorporated under Clause 7(ii) thereof for medical reimbursement in case of Cochlear Implant. Further taking this Court through Rule 26 of the Bihar Medical Attendance Rules, it is contended that even if the afore noted notification dated 14.08.2015 came subsequent to the death of the petitioner, Rule 26 of the Bihar Medical Attendance Rules empowers the State Government to invoke the same in case of any emergency and need arises for in exceptional circumstances. The very rejection of the claim of the petitioner is said to be contrary to the very import and purpose of the provision contained in Rule 26. Reliance has also been placed on a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Maina Devi v. State of Bihar & Ors (CWJC No. 2250 of 2021), wherein the Court noted that the reimbursement of medical claim is a statutory right incorporated to extend the financial succor to the employee(s) and his/her dependent, in the hour of need and, thus, such right cannot be defeated on mere technicalities.
The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTU5NDMjMjAyMSMxI04=-9GI4f5M9jZs=
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
