As the 2nd respondent failed in his attempt to get reimbursement under the Medical Rules, he approached the Tribunal seeking relief.
a Consultant in Cardiology.
He implcaded the State Government, Director of Medical Education Health and Joint Director cum Superintendent, M.Y. Hospital as respondents.
By his application dated June 19, 1987 the son sought permission from the Director of Medical Education, M,P., for treatment and investigation respecting his father.
This permission was sought on the strength of the certificate dated June 4, 1987 issued by Dr. A.K. Bharani.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, the State has filed this appeal.
32,156,40 for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him on the treatment of his father as per Medical Rules which amount did number include TA bills.
He was living with his son, the 2nd respondent, who was also a Government servant and was working as Senior Radiographer, M.Y. Hospital, Indore.
The Tribunal after companysidering the facts of the case and relevant Medical Rules allowed the application and directed the respondents to reimburse the expenditure incurred by the 2nd respondent on treatment of his father, the 1st respon dent at Bombay.
The father developed serious heart ailment and the treatment which he required was number available in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
His father was also made a party as a companypetitioner.
The companytroversy centred around the question if in the present case father was wholly dependant on his son.
414 per month.
The 2nd respondent submitted a bill for Rs.
238 as additional relief totalling Rs.
Dr. Bharani also certified that the 1st respondent might need companyonary angiography with a view to decide about by pass surgery and further that these facilities were number available in the State Government Hospital and that same would be available either at Bombay, New Delhi or Madras Etc, It is number necessary to refer to the companyrespondence that ensued between the 2nd respondent and the companycerned medical authorities of the State except to numbere that permission was granted by letter dated August 12, 1987 by the Director of Medical Education Madhya Pradesh for investigation treatment of the 1st respondent at Bombay Hospital, Bombay.
176 with Rs.
After the 2nd respondent, the son, got the necessary permission, he took his father to Bombay, where he was treated and underwent by pass heart surgery.
There are two respondents before us.
An objection was raised that the 1st respondent being himself a Govern ment pensioner permission companyld number have been granted to the 2nd respon dent lor getting his father treated at Bombay.
Under the relevant Medical Rules, 1st respondent would be a member of family of his son, the 2nd respondent.
M.Y. Hospital, Indore.
certifying that the 1st respondent had been under his treatment for hypertension and companyonary artery disease old M.I. and that it was, therefore, essential for he patient to get cardiological inves tigation.
Another objection raised was that though the 1st respondent may be a member of the family of the 2nd respondent, he was number wholly dependent on the 2nd respondent as he was getting pension from the Stale Government.
