Begin typing your search...

    Madras HC quashes TN govt's refusal to reimburse the medical claim of an employee

    Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy directed the State to consider the claim of the petitioner and release the payment by calculating the amount as per the bills submitted by him within eight weeks and the amount should carry interest of 6 percent per annum while disposing of a petition moved by a Bachelor of Teaching (BT) assistant.

    Madras HC quashes TN govts refusal to reimburse the medical claim of an employee
    X

    Madras High Court

    CHENNAI: The Madras High Court quashed the State's refusal to pay the medical claim of a BT assistant who was diagnosed with throat cancer and directed to reimburse the medical expenses.

    Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy directed the State to consider the claim of the petitioner and release the payment by calculating the amount as per the bills submitted by him within eight weeks and the amount should carry interest of 6 percent per annum while disposing of a petition moved by a Bachelor of Teaching (BT) assistant.

    The Court had repeatedly held that when the veracity of the medical expenses incurred by a government employee is not at all doubted, merely on the ground that the hospital is not an accredited hospital and prior authorization is not granted cannot be the reason to repudiate the medical reimbursement, read the judgment.

    The petitioner G.Seetharaman was diagnosed with throat cancer and underwent protracted treatment initially at Manipal Hospital, Bangalore, and thereafter at Apollo Hospital, Chennai.

    The petitioner has submitted three bills for medical reimbursement to the tune of Rs.7 lakh, out of which the State authorized only Rs.2 lakh.

    The claim of the petitioner was repudiated by the State on the ground that they were unable to process the reimbursement since no prior authorization was obtained.

    Aggrieved by this the petitioner approached the District Level Empowered Committee, which also rejected the claim stating that the hospitals in which the petitioner was treated were not an accredited hospitals.

    DTNEXT Bureau
    Next Story