A Government employee should strictly follow the Government guidelines for medical reimbursement bills: High Court of Tripura.
A person who is a government employee is only liable to claim medical reimbursement bills when such person has followed the government guidelines for medical reimbursement bills. A single Judge bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Mr. Arindam Lodhi, in the matter of Sri Pradip Datta Vs. The State Tripura (WP(C) 234 OF 2021), dealt with an issue where the petitioner had filed this petition as such application for medical reimbursement was rejected by the respondents – State.
In the present case, the petitioner’s daughter was suffering from illness and was under treatment of Dr. J. L. Roy, Agartala, Tripura. The petitioner also visited Hyderabad twice for better treatment of his daughter. During the second visit to Hyderabad, the petitioner’s wife fell ill, and on examination by doctors of the Asian Institute of Nephrology and Urology (for short, AINU), and kidney stone was detected. Thereby petitioner’s wife was operated and the petitioner submitted bills for medical reimbursement as he was eligible for such reimbursement of medical bills. The bill was rejected by the state- respondent stating that the petitioner went to Hyderabad and treated his wife at AINU without any referral certificate from the recognized standing Medical Board constituted by the Govt. of Tripura.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to an emergent situation, the petitioner could not obtain a referral certificate from the Medical Board. To this, the counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner did not treat his wife in an emergent situation. The counsel also submitted that the discharge summary reveals that the petitioner undertook many medical tests of his wife and ultimately stone was detected at her kidney it was mentioned in the report that the petitioner’s wife had pain in right loin on and off since 8 years associated with occasional LUTS.
Further, the counsel for the petitioner had referred to 2 more judgments passed by the court, but the court did not find it relevant to the facts of the present case. The court observed that the treatment was not done in an emergent situation. Further, the court observed that- “since the wife of the petitioner had been suffering from this illness for about 8 years and for the last 3 months before his visiting to Hyderabad there was pain off and on at her abdomen, she could have easily contacted with the Doctors of the Government Hospitals at Agartala for her treatment.” Further, the court observed that the petitioner as a government employee should follow the Government guidelines for medical reimbursement bills. Thereby the court dismissed the writ petition.