Anup Kumar Chaudhary v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Deputy Director, Veterinary Services, Chhindwara. The petitioner suffered a heart attack and got admitted in the hospital at Chhindwara. However, as the facility for open heart surgery was not available in Chhindwara, he was referred to a higher medical institution. The petitioner got admitted in Dr. K.G. Deshmukh Memorial Centre Hospital, Nagpur and operated on 25.04.2014. The petitioner was discharged on 03.05.2014 . Thereafter, the petitioner applied for post-treatment sanction for reimbursement of the medical bill vide applications dated 20.08.2014 (annexure P/4) and 07.02.2015 (Annexure P/5). It is submitted that the application of the petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned order dated 22.07.2015 passed by the Dean, Medical College, Jabalpur, on the grounds that the operation which has been undertaken by the petitioner was not of such a nature which can be said to be emergency treatment and the petitioner had taken treatment in an unrecognized medical institution. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that M.P. Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the " Rules of 1958), are silent with regard to grant of post-sanction for treatment obtained from a medical institution situated outside the State. However, the State Government has formulated a policy vide circular dated 28.05.2013 (Annexure P/12), wherein certain guidelines have been laid down regarding sanction of treatment of Government servants outside the State. According to Clause 2 of the said policy, post-sanction can be granted by the Director, Medical Education through Controlling Authority/Administrative Department/Head of the Department. A committee

2

has also been constituted to consider cases relating to post-sanction, according to which the Divisional Commissioner is the President and Dean, Medical College, and other officers of the Government Departments are made members of that committee. The said committee is a Divisional Level Committee, which is required to refer the matter to the State Level Committee headed by the Principal Secretary, Medical Education Department. It is submitted that in the present case, the Dean, by impugned order dated 22.7.2015 has rejected the petitioner's application. Therefore, the impugned order is without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that Rules of 1958 do not provide for any provision for treatment in a medical institution situated outside the State. Therefore, the State Government has formulated a policy, according to which the petitioner was required to take prior sanction from the competent authority. The petitioner neither obtained pre-treatment sanction from the competent authority nor took treatment from a medical institution recognized by the State. Therefore, in any case, the petitioner is not entitled for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred at post-treatment stage and prayed for dismissal of the petition

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. It is not disputed that the petitioner has undertaken treatment from the medical institution situated outside the State. It is also not disputed that the State has formulated a policy to reimburse the payment of medical bills post-treatment taken from an institution situated outside the State. However, as the Rules of 1958 do not provide any provision regarding post-sanction of

3

treatment from a medical institution situated outside the State, the State Government has taken a policy decision vide policy dated 28.05.2013 (Annexure P/12) according to which post-treatment sanction is to be granted by the Committee, of which details are mentioned in the said circular. In the said committee, the Divisional Commissioner is the President and the Dean, Medical Education, is the Member Secretary along with other members of the Committee who are from different departments.

6 . From a perusal of the impugned order, it is found that the Committee, headed by the Divisional Commissioner, after examining the matter of the petitioner, found that the treatment of the petitioner was not so emergent that petitioner could not take any prior sanction before getting admitted in an institution situated outside the State and the treatment was taken in an institution which is not recognized by the State. It is found that the State has also recognized certain specialized institutions situated outside the State for the treatment of its employees. However, as the petitioner got himself treated in an institution which is not recognized by the State and finding it that the treatment was not so emergent that prior sanction could not be taken by the petitioner, in the considered opinion of this Court, the decision taken by the authorities is in consonance of the policy. It is also pertinent to note that when the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.07.2015 informing the decision of the Committee by the Member Secretary of the Committee, the petitioner has not filed any document to substantiate that when the petitioner admitted in the Government Hospital, Chhindwara, he has taken any reference to be admitted in a specialized

4

(DEEPAK KHOT)

JUDGE

hospital. In the absence of such reference or recommendation by a Medical Officer of the State to the effect that petitioner needed urgent treatment in a particular institution, it cannot be gathered that petitioner, due to urgent medical necessity, got admitted in a particular institution without taking prior permission from the State. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the orders passed by the Committee are in consonance of the policy issued by the State.

7. No case is made out warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.

L.R.

5