JUDGEMENT
S.Talapatra,J. -
(1.)Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. GA appearing for the respondents No.1,2,5,6 & 7. Also heard Mr. S.S. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.3 & 4.
(2.)This is the second round of litigation regarding the claim of medical reimbursement for the expenses that incurred by the petitioner for treatment of Cancer. There is no dispute that by the terms of the memorandum under No.F.5(10)-Fin(G)/75-I dated 09.08.2005 [Annexure-R/1 to the reply filed by the respondents No.1,2,5,6 and 7] reimbursement of treatment expenses for cancer is entitled to the petitioner. The said memorandum dated 09.08.2005 contains the policy of the Government which has been adopted by the respondents No.3 and 4. In the said policy, it has been clearly provided that '(i) When a Group-C/Group-D Government employee himself/herself suffering from disease other than cancer is referred to Medical Institution/Hospital to which he/she is referred to, the cost of treatment in that Institution/Hospital excluding the cost of journey is admissible for reimbursement. This benefit is not admissible in respect of any member of the family of such a Government employee. (ii) When a Group-C/Group D Government employee himself/herself or any member of his/her family suffers from cancer and is referred to a medical Institution/Hospital outside the State by the Standing medical Board, the cost of treatment in such Institution/Hospital inclusive of admissible journey expenses only up to referred Institution/hospital (both ways) is admissible for reimbursement. Journey expenses of the escort, if any, recommended by the Standing Medical Board is also admissible for reimbursement'.
(3.)Pursuant to the said policy, the petitioner was reimbursed the medical expense for treatment of the same ailment, when he was referred by the Standing Medical Board on 15.09.2016 to Tata Medical Centre, Kolkata but later on when he was required to take chemo-therapy in the same centre, he could not obtain similar reference. The petitioner had been denied the reimbursement of his treatment expenses. On the face of such denial, the petitioner had approached this court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.287 of 2019. By the order dated 17.06.2019 delivered in that writ petition this court had observed and directed that 'the petitioner to apply for ex-post-facto referral certificate to the concerned authority as well as standing Medical Board constituted by the Health Department, Government of Tripura. The concerned authority on receipt of the said representation, if it is found, that the petitioner was really treated at the referral hospital, then, the State-respondents as well as TSIC-respondents shall definitely consider the case of the petitioner for reimbursement of medical bills after issuance of ex-post-facto referral certificate in accordance with the existing Rules.'
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.