Judgment:
HON'BLE Mr. GEORGE PARACKEN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The applicant is presently working as a Deputy Chief Ticket Inspector at Ernakulam Town in the Trivandrum Division of Southern Railway. As an emergency case, his wife was admitted to the Cherian Memorial Hospital, Chengannur by his neighbours while he was on duty. Thereafter she was diagonised to have suffering from appendicitis and was subjected to an emergent surgery. She was discharged with a bill of Rs.11,177/- as evident from the Annexure A-1 dated 8.3.2007. Later, it was found that she was suffering from Fibroid Uterus and again she was admitted in the same hospital at Chengannur. On discharge, she was given a bill of Rs.20,085/-. The applicant sought reimbursement of the aforesaid two bills from the respondents. However, no payment has so far been made.
2. The respondents have filed a reply statement. As regards the 1st bill of Rs.11,177/- was concerned, they have submitted that the discharge summary issued by the private hospital did not contain any details and in the absence of detailed discharge summary the claim could not be processed. Accordingly, vide letter dated 3.1.2008 the 2nd respondent returned the claim to the applicant through the 3rd respondent for want of detailed discharge summary. They have also submitted that on resubmission of the aforesaid discharge summary and other details, the bill will be processed and necessary payment will be made in accordance with the rules. As regards the 2nd bill of Rs.20,085/- was concerned, they have submitted that the applicant is not entitled for any reimbursement because the treatment for Fibroid Uterus was not an emergency case but it was purely on an elective basis as the applicant has sufficient time to approach the Railway Hospital to get her treatment.
3. I have heard Shri.Martin G Thottan for the applicant and Shri.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil for the respondents. Counsel for the applicant has very fairly submitted that he is not pressing for the reimbursement of the 2nd bill amounting to Rs.20,085/-. However, as regards the 1st bill is concerned, he has submitted that the applicant has no control over the private hospital which gives the discharge summary in its own style and manner. He submitted that the applicant had approached the private hospital again on the directions of the respondents but he was informed that discharge summaries issued to the other patients of the hospital were in the same manner and no other prescribed method was being followed. Moreover, it is not the claim of the respondents that they have a prescribed format for the private hospitals to fill up the discharge summary. In view of the above position, I partly allow this O.A. The respondents Railway shall re-consider the bill of Rs.11,177/- towards the expenditure incurred by the applicant for the treatment of his wife for appendicitis operation without insisting for any further details of discharge summary from the private hospital and the admissible amount shall be paid to the applicant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.