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

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...

Person Being Prosecuted To Be Provided With All Relevant Documents

The Delhi High Court, in the case of Poonam Jain vs Union of India & Ors, noted that a person being prosecuted against has a right to be provided with all the material relied upon by the prosecuting agency to prosecute her/ him. In the instant case, a search was conducted at the residences of the petitioners and their statements were recorded and several documents were seized. They were issued show cause notices under Section 276 C(1) and Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, Section 181 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 50 and 51 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act. They sought to be provided with a copy of their statements and the documents seised. However, the same was denied to them.