Jagat Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation

2. As it transpired, Mr. Jagat Singh was taken by his relatives to the Medanta Hospital in Gurgaon, where;he remained under treatment till the 29 April, 2015. The Medanta Hospitaldiagnosed Mr. Jagat Singh to be suffering from Acute IWMI+ Coronaiy Aflery Disease and double vessel disease and consequently perfornied a Coronary Angiography and PTCA + stentto RCA,on Mr.Jagat Singh., T;

3. Mr. Jagat Singh thereafter.;;subrnitted medical reimbursement claim,quathe treatmenttaken:by him hoth.atthe Kalayani Hospital,as well as, the Medanta Hospital for the peridd from 2?"^ April, 2015 to the 29^*^ April,2015,amounting to Rs.2,99,994/-(RsA[5],^7/-in relation to Kalayani Hospital and Rs.2,50,000/- qua the expenses incurred for surgery and medicines atthe MedantaHospital).The DelhiTransportCorporation has by its impugned action allowed only an amount ofRs. 42,000/-, in relation to the expenditure incurred by Mr.Jagat Singh at Kalayani Hospital,which as above mentioned, is empanelled with them. Insofar as, the expenditure W.P.(C)13443/2018 p Page 2of[6] •c incurred at the Medanta Hospital is concerned, the Delhi Transport Corporation allowed the same only to the extent of an amount of Rs. 54^471/-. Mr. Jagat Singh being aggrieved by the rejection of his reimbursement ofthe entire amount expended by him towards his treatment, initiated an Original Application being OA No. 3995/2016, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. Vide the impugned judgment and Order dated 24^^ September, 2018, the Central Administrative Tribunal has declined fhe.relief, prayed for by Mr. Jagat Singh inter alia, in terms ofthe JudgmeiiTo^^^^^^ Hon'ble Supreme Courtin "State of Punjab and Others ys^ Rani Phbhaya Bagga and Others, reported as(1998)4Supreme Cowppasi^jlf.

4. Learned counsel appealing Jagat Singh assails the impugned Judgment and Order dated i&i^ember,2018,principally on the ground that the relevant Circular No.Ad^l-7(27)2005, dated 29 November, 2005, which admittedly governs the issue of medical reimbursementin relation to employees ofthe DelhiTransport Corporation, is violative of the principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution ofIndiaand is also illogical. Page3of[6] 0(

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Delhi Transport Corporation on the contrary invites our attention to Clause (iii) ofthe said Circular dated 24^^ September, 2018, which he submits is attracted to the facts ofthe present case,to urge that, when treatment has been availed in an emergency from a non-empanelled hospital, the reimbursement therefor is thereunder required to be made strictly in accordance with the AIIMS rates, ^ asclearly andunequivocally providedintermsofthesaid Office OrderNo. 16,dated 27^''August,1991. ':kA V,

6. At the outset, we must obseiwe^th^;':fHere was no challenge to the aforesaid Circular dated 29^^ November,20,0^^,on behalfofMr.Jagat Singh, before the Central Administrative'^Ibunalkpven otherwise,the question of the policy made by statutory reimbursementofmedical ^ expenses is notordinarily subjecttojudM&review.Inthis behalf,it would be profitable to extract the dictum ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram LubhayaBagga(supra)and in particular,paragraph25 ofthereport,which reads as follows "Now we revertto the last submission,whether the new State policy isjustified in notreimbursing an employee, his full medical expenses incurred on such treatment,if incurred in any hospital in India notbeing a government hospital in Punjab. Question is whether the new policy Page4of[6] which is restricted by, the financial constraints of the State to the rates in AIIMS would be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. So far as questioning the validity of governmental policy is concerned in our view it is not normallv within the flnmain of anv court,to weigh the pros and cons ofthe policv or to scrutinize it and test the degree of its beneficial or equitable disposition for the purpose of varving. modifying or annulling it. based on howsoever sound and good reasoning,except where itis arbitrary or vinlative of anv constitutional, statutnrv or anv other provision oflaw. When Governmentforms its policy,it is based on a number of circumstances on facts, law including constraints based'on its resources. It is also hRsed on expert oninioiifltwduld^e Hangerous ifcourt is asked to testthe utilitw henefifeii^^effect ofthe policy or its appraisal based oh^facts set'dui on affidavits. The court would dissuade itself-from'entering into this realm. which belongs to the executive. It is within this matrix that it is to he seenA^eteer policy violates Article21 when itrestfidis.iyimh^ on accountof its financial constraints.

7. From a plain reading ofthe subjectmedicalreimbursementpolicy,m ourconsideredview,thesarneisneitheraffflSy^rwhimsical,norcanitbe saidto violatethe principles ofequality.

7. In view ofthe foregoing, we see no warrant to interfere with the impugned Judgmentand Orderdated24"'September,2018,renderedbythe Central Administrative Tribunal. Page5of[6]

MARCH 12,2020 RS SID0HARTH MRIDUL / (JUDGE)

TALWANT SINGH (JUDGE) r '■ •" " ■,[1] ■; ■ ■',v I;? '■■■V.i