Little more sensitivity expected from govt when dealing with medical reimbursement claims of their retired employees: HC

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has remarked that it expects a little more sensitivity from the Delhi government when it is dealing with claims for reimbursement of medical expenses of senior citizens who are their own retired employees. According to legal news website Live Law, Justice Rekha Palli set aside the order dated March 1, 2021 passed by the Government of NCT of Delhi rejecting the claim of the petitioner, a retired Judicial Officer of the Delhi Judicial Service and a member of the Delhi Government Employees Health Scheme, for reimbursement of a sum of Rs 4,27,276 towards the amounts spent by him for treatment of his wife.

The petitioner's wife was diagnosed with from Cholongio Carcinoma, a rare form of cancer and was advised to undergo proton therapy at Apollo hospital, Chennai. He had then approached the High Court by filing another petition seeking directions on the Delhi government to grant permission to his wife for taking treatment at Apollo Hospital, Chennai. It was the petitioner's case that even though the government had conveyed its no objection for his wife to undergo the said treatment, however the said permission could not be availed on account of rapid increase in the Covid-19 cases.

After condition of the petitioner's wife started deteriorating in September 2020, she was admitted in Medanta Hospital, Gurugram and was discharged with a bill of Rs 4,27,276.

The petitioner had then submitted his claim for reimbursement which was forwarded to the Delhi Government to District Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari. The claim was rejected by the Delhi government under the impugned order.

The petitioner had then submitted his claim for reimbursement which was forwarded to the Delhi government to District Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari. The claim was rejected by the Delhi government under the impugned order.

It was thus the petitioner's case that the impugned order was passed without assigning any reasons by merely stating that the hospital was not an empanelled hospital under the DGEHS scheme of which the petitioner is a member.

It was argued by the petitioner that the Delhi government had ignored its own office memorandum dated 28.07.2010 stating that the beneficiaries under the DGEHS scheme would also be entitled to avail medical treatment in Central Government Health Scheme empanelled hospitals outside Delhi. It was further argued that once it was an admitted position that the Medanta Hospital was empanelled under the CGHS, his claim could not have been rejected.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the Delhi government that once the hospital was not empanelled under the DGEHS, it cannot be faulted for not accepting the petitioner's claim for reimbursement.

Furthermore, it was submitted that even though Medanta Hospital was empanelled under the CGHS, the petitioner was a member of the DGEHS therefore, could not seek reimbursement for the expenses incurred at the said Hospital.