State has obligation to bear treatment expense of govt servant, family: Kerala High Court

The Kerala HIgh Court on Monday held that the government is constitutionally and statutorily obliged to provide for and bear the expenses incurred by government servants for medical treatment as per its policy. [Dr. George Thomas & Anr. v State of Kerala & Ors.].Justice Murali Purushothaman opined that the right to health is an integral part of right to life guaranteed under the Constitution, and reimbursement of medical expenses of government servants is mandated under the Kerala Government Servants Medical Attendance Rules."There is a Constitutional as well a Statutory obligation on the part of the State to bear the expenses for treatment of the government servant and his family. In the backdrop of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the Rules issued under the proviso to Article 309, it is impermissible for the respondents to reject the claim of the petitioner for reimbursement of the bills for the reasons stated in Ext. P8," the single-Judge ruled..The Court passed the judgment on a petition filed by an Assistant Professor at the Catholicate College and his father, who is completely dependent on him and was recently diagnosed with cancer. He was taken to a private specialty hospital for treatment, which was recognised by a 2016 Government Order to facilitate medical reimbursement benefits under the Kerala Government Servants Medical Attendance Rules.In 2018, he underwent surgery at the Laproscopic Department and subsequently the petitioner applied for reimbursement. Later in 2020, the government issued a circular stating that unless treatment was availed at a government recognised private hospital, medical reimbursement could not be availed. Therefore, the reimbursement claim was rejected.This prompted the petitioner to approach the High Court through advocates Jacob P Alex, Joseph P Alex and Manu Shankar P.It was contended that the Medical and Surgical Oncology Department of the Hospital was recognised and recommended by the government and therefore, the denial of reimbursement on the ground that the procedure was done laparoscopically, could not be sustained. This was countered by Government Pleader Jimmy George who submitted that in light of the financial constraints thrown up by the pandemic in the recent past, the State had decided to follow stricter conditions for reimbursement of medical treatments. .The Court observed that under the Rules which were framed in exercise of the powers under the proviso to Article 309, a claim for reimbursement is admissible even if the hospital from which the treatment availed is a private hospital, provided it is empanelled under the Rules.In the instant case, the Court noted that the hospital satisfied the criteria and the procedure undergone is part of medical and oncology treatment."It is for the Doctor to decide how a patient should be treated and which surgical procedure is safer and suitable to the patient. When Medical and Surgical Oncology department of the Hospital has been recognised by the Government, the respondents cannot reject the claim of the 1st petitioner saying that the General and Laparoscopic surgery department from where the 2ndpetitioner has received the treatment is not recognized by the Government," the Court said. Therefore, the Court ordered the State to reconsider afresh the petitioners' application for reimbursement within a period of two months. .[Read Judgment]