9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Reimbursement of room rent for treatment in hospitals. 2. Government's obligation to bear expenses for specialized treatment. 3. Interpretation of government policies on medical expenses reimbursement. Analysis: Issue 1: The first case involved a government servant who underwent treatment at a specialized hospital outside the state. The government rejected reimbursement for room rent paid during the treatment. The Supreme Court held that room rent for inpatient treatment is an integral part of medical expenses. The court emphasized the right to health as part of the right to life and ruled in favor of reimbursing the room rent incurred during the treatment. Issue 2: In the second case, a government servant received treatment at another specialized hospital recommended by the Medical Board. The government limited reimbursement for room rent based on rates charged by a different hospital. The court disagreed with the government's stance, citing the government's policy to reimburse medical expenses for certain diseases treated at approved hospitals. The court emphasized that room rent during treatment is an essential part of the expenses and directed the government to reimburse the actual amount paid for room rent during the treatment. Issue 3: The court highlighted the government's constitutional obligation to provide health facilities to its employees. It noted that the government must fulfill its duty to bear expenses for specialized treatment as per its policies. The court rejected the government's argument of imposing conditions on room rent reimbursement and emphasized the necessity to cover all expenses incurred during inpatient treatment at approved hospitals. Overall, the Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, affirming the right to reimbursement of room rent as part of medical expenses during specialized treatment and emphasizing the government's duty to bear such expenses for its employees undergoing treatment at approved hospitals.
|
