@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
C.S. Karnan, J.@mdashThe petitioner submits that he joined in the Central Industrial Security Force on 11.10.1982 and he had worked at various stations across the country. At present, he is working under the respondents herein. The petitioner''s mother was also living with him, his father is working as a Village servant and he has no medical facilities for his family members and he has retired from service on 31.05.2002 without any pensionary benefits. On 11.12.2000 he had applied for family accommodation on the ground that his mother was suffering from cancer. Without considering this aspect, the petitioner had not been allotted residential quarters on top most priority basis. As per rule 60 of the Central Industrial Security Force, the petitioner is entitled to medical facilities of the Central Government Health Scheme and in places where facilities are not available, they shall be governed by Central Service (Medical Attendance) Rules 1944 provided that when they are deployed in public service undertaking. In a case where such Public Sector undertaking provides medical facilities to its employees, such officers and members of the Force shall be entitled to avail such facilities free of charge and in any other case, authorized medical attendant of such public undertaking shall be authorized medical attendant for such officers and members of the Force for the purpose of the Central Service (Medical Attendant) Rules 1944. The petitioner submits that on 06.03.2001 and 04.07.2001 he made representations to the Chief Medical Officer, the third respondent herein and requested to issue referral certificate for better treatment of his mother to the authorized hospitals of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited, Manali. Since no reply has been received from the Chief Medical Officer, again he made another representation on 24.12.2001. The petitioner further stated in the letters dated 22.01.2002 and 29.01.2002 sent to the Director (Operation) has also enclosed the copies of the letters dated 24.12.2001 and 08.01.2002 duly enclosing the telegram to the Director (operation). He made a representation to the Chief Medical Officer and requested to provide medical facilities for his late mother who expired of cancer enclosing the certificate issued by the Cancer Cure Centre, dated 22.12.2001 and requested to sanction the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as advance for the treatment of cancer to the petitioner''s mother. Since no reply has been received from the Chief Medical Officer, the petitioner had sent a representation to the Director (operation), CICL, Manali, Chennai, with a request to sanction a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the treatment of the petitioner''s mother.
2. On 29.01.2002 by another representation to the Chief Medical Officer requesting to refer the petitioner''s mother to the Cancer Institute for taking chemotherapy treatment. In the above said letter, he has stated that his mother would not be able to travel for a long distance and she was taking treatment at G.V.N. Cancer Cure Centre, Trichy. The copy of the Medical Certificate issued by Dr. S. Xavier, with regard to his mother''s condition was also submitted along with the letter dated 29.01.2002. In spite of the several representations and the recommendations of the Deputy Commandant dated 23.01.2002, the Director (Operation) and the medical officer have not taken care to sanction the amount and to refer the petitioner''s to the Cancer Institute for proper treatment.
3. In view of the above, the petitioner''s sister had admitted his mother to a private hospital and she had incurred heavy expenses and has also suffered mental agony besides, the loss of his mother. Had the amount being sanctioned in time, she would have admitted his mother at the Cancer Institute at Chennai, where proper treatment for cancer would have been provided. It is due to the negligence and carelessness by the Chief Medical Officer and Director (Operations), the petitioner''s mother expired on 07.02.2002. Hence, the petitioner sent a lawyer''s notice on 29.04.2002 to the respondents for negligence and deficiency in service. On 18.06.2002, the first respondent has sent a reply to the notice dated 29.04.2002. The petitioner further submitted that due to the inaction of the respondent the petitioner is constrained to file the above writ petition and claimed compensation for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- for mental agony and hardship.
4. The first respondent has filed counter statement and resisted the writ petition. The respondents submit that the Central Industrial Security Force who is the employer of the petitioner is not made as a party in the writ petition. The Central Industrial Security Force have posted the petitioner of the plant of the respondents and is liable to be transferred to other companies as well. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for payment of a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards damages and mental agony and humiliation. The appropriate remedy that is available for the petitioner is to approach the civil Court for a decree of payment of damages, as such the petitioner cannot invoke the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and seek for damages towards mental agony and humiliation. The respondent further submitted that the respondent Company has a list of referred hospitals treatment and all the expenses which are to be borne by the respondent company has to be done in one of the referred hospital. Normally, the authorization letter to the hospitals in Chennai for treatment of Central Industrial Security Force staff is issued only after completion of the six months service, however, as a special case, the rules were relaxed in the petitioner''s case having consideration to the nature of illness suffered by the petitioner''s mother and the petitioner was directed to take his mother to the cancer institute, Adayar.
5. Further, the respondent by its letter dated April 2001, July 2001, and February 2002 has stated that they were willing to bear the expenses regarding the treatment at the Cancer Institute, Adayar, Chennai. The respondent further submits that insofar as medical facilities to be provided to the Central Industrial Security Force personnel deployed in public Sector undertakings, the medical facilities are extended only when a full fledged hospital is in existence with attached facilities and since the respondent does not have such a hospital, the question of providing the medical facilities does not arise. However, outpatient treatment is provided to all Central Industrial Security Force personnel free of cost at the occupational health service centre situated in the premises of the refinery, besides, the domiciliary and hospitalization facilities are provided as per the CPCT medical rules applicable to Central Industrial Security Force personnel. The petitioner had been advised by the respondent company to bring his mother for treatment to Chennai, having failed to do so, the petitioner cannot now attribute the loss of his mother to the respondent company. There was no deficiency or carelessness on the part of the respondents as alleged by the petitioner. The respondent further submits that the Central Industrial Security Force personnel cited by the petitioner, namely, Sharma, Laxmanan, Binzamin, Palaman and Kanchana were not sanctioned advance for medical treatment. All these personnel except Kanchana were sanctioned only reimbursement of the hospitalization expenses incurred by them. In the case of Kanchanna, the respondent company settled the medical expenses of her husband who underwent the treatment at Appollo Hospital which is one of the nominated hospitals of the respondent company.
6. Therefore, the respondents submit that no negligence can be attributed on the part of the respondents for the loss of life of the petitioner''s mother. Hence, the respondent entreats the Court to dismiss the above writ.
7. The very competent counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner made several representations to the respondents and requested them to provide residential accommodation quarters and financial assistance for his ailing mother in order to provide necessary medical aid and comfortable accommodation since she is suffering from cancer. His mother Velliammal aged about 45 years was undergoing medical treatment at G.V.N. Hospital, Cancer Cure Centre. The Doctor attached to the same hospital had issued a medical certificate stating that the petitioner''s mother needed Chemotherapy treatment as such the expected medical expenditure to be incurred would be Rs. 1,00,000/- approximately. On the basis of medical opinion, the petitioner made several representations to the respondents under whom he is doing uniform essential service as a regular employee. This request has not been considered by the respondents, finally, the petitioner''s mother had expired due to inadequate and timely medical treatment, as such, the respondents have committed carelessness and insufficiency in service. Therefore, the highly competent counsel entreats the court to pay damages a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
8. The very competent counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the petitioner''s representation is reasonable and at the same time there is no specific rule to grant an advance for medical aid. However, when the respondents sent three communications in the month of April 2001, July 2001, and February 2002 stating that they were willing to bear the expenses regarding the medical treatment of the petitioner at the Cancer Institute, Adyar, Chennai, wherein comprehensive facilities are available, the same had not been accepted by the petitioner, therefore, negligence is on the side of the petitioner and not on the side of the respondents. The highly competent counsel further submits that the petitioner after his appointment, he had served at six places across the country and he joined at the respondent corporation on 01.12.2000 which is now the 7th place, this place is not permanent and expected any moment for a transfer to another place, however, the respondents had extended their co-operation to the petitioner in order to provide medical treatment to his ailing mother, as such, there is no dereliction of duty, negligence and insufficient service on the part of the respondents. Hence, the highly competent counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the writ petition.
9. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the documents annexed with the writ petition, this Court does not find any lapse on the part of the respondents. This Court''s further view that when the respondent had sent three letters dated April 2001, July 2001 and February 2002 and had stated that they were willing to bear the expenses regarding the medical treatment at the Cancer Institute, Adyar, Chennai, wherein, the petitioner''s mother could avail chemotherapy treatment, the same had not been accepted by the petitioner. The respondents pointed out in their counter statement that the Central Industrial Security Force personnel cited by the petitioner, namely, Mr. Sharma, Mr. Laxmanan, Mr. Benzamin, Mr. Paraman and Mrs. Kanjana were not sanctioned advance for medical treatment. All the personnel except Mrs. Kanjana were sanctioned only reimbursement of the hospitalization expenses incurred by them. In the case of Mrs. Kanjana, the respondent company settled the medical expenses of her husband who underwent treatment at Appollo Hospital, which is one of the nominated hospitals of the respondent company. This clearly indicates that the respondents had not treated the petitioner''s case in differently or indiscriminately, therefore, negligence, insufficiency of service cannot be attributed against the respondents in this case. Hence, this writ petition does not have enough force to allow it. In the result, the above writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
