Login Register
Follow Us

Reimburse expenses on girl’s treatment, HC tells authorities

CHANDIGARH: When a station master pledged his house for Rs 6 lakh for his daughter’s treatment, little did he realise that the authorities concerned would derail his hopes for getting the amount reimbursed on procedural lines.

Show comments

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, January 16

When a station master pledged his house for Rs 6 lakh for his daughter’s treatment, little did he realise that the authorities concerned would derail his hopes for getting the amount reimbursed on procedural lines. Coming to his rescue, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has not only diagnosed as illegal and unjustified the action of denying her medical reimbursement, but has also prescribed six-week deadline for the amount’s release.

“It is clear that the petitioner’s daughter had undergone surgery at the PGI, the surgery was essential and it has resulted in substantial improvement in her condition. Thus, the action of the respondents in denying her medical reimbursement claim was illegal and unjustified,” Justice Rajiv Sharma and Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu ruled.

The petitioner had moved the High Court after the Central Administrative Tribunal in March 2015 dismissed his application seeking medical reimbursement claim of Rs 5, 78, 825, along with interest, for Cochlear Implantation Surgery undergone by his daughter.

Dismissing the application, the Tribunal held that the material on record made it clear that the petitioner’s daughter being prelingually deaf was not eligible for undergoing Cochlear Implantation Surgery at 18 in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government of India/ Railway Board on December 31, 2009.

The guidelines said the surgery could be performed between one and 10 years in case of prelingually deaf children. The term defines an individual born with a hearing loss.

After hearing amicus curiae Navkiran Singh and rival submissions, the Bench asserted that the primary ground for rejection of the petitioner’s claim for reimbursement was that the instructions regarding the same had not been followed. Further, the guidelines regarding Cochlear Implantation had not been complied with.

Show comments
Show comments

Top News

Most Read In 24 Hours