Skip to main content

Treatment in approved hospital not a must for mediclaim: Madras HC

The Madras high court has directed the state agricultural marketing and agricultural business department to reimburse the medical expenses incurred by a retired government employee for his heart surgery.

The Madurai bench of the court ordered the director of the department to make the payout after considering the plea of one N Chidambaram. He approached the high court after his insurance claim under the Tamil Nadu Government Employees Health Fund Scheme was rejected by the authorities on the ground that the hospital where he underwent surgery was not in the list of approved hospitals mentioned in the government order.

Chidambaram underwent angioplasty and other coronary procedures in a private hospital in 2009. His medical reimbursement amounted to Rs 1.94 lakh.

Chidambaram's writ petition was heard by Justice M M Sundresh who passed orders favouring him. In his order, the judge said that the petitioner's counsel A Haja Mohideen rightly pointed out that the right to medical claim could not be denied merely because the name of the hospital was not included in the government order.

The judge recalled an earlier court observation in another case while delivering his order. When a person is struggling for life his family members won't be searching for a recognised hospital for future medical reimbursement, he said.

Article referred:http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2014-02-14/madurai/47335377_1_medical-claim-heart-surgery-madras-high-court

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more