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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...