File photo

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, December 24

Rapping the Punjab Government for a hair-splitting view in case of a widow being compelled to move from pillar to post for medical reimbursement after her husband’s death, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that introduction of the cashless scheme only for a particular year could not come in way of releasing the amount.

The state’s stand in the matter was that the patient-husband did not get himself enrolled for the cashless medical treatment scheme — an argument that failed to find favour with the High Court.

Directing the government to reimburse the petitioner’s medical claim within 60 days, Justice Arun Monga made it clear that the amount would carry 5 per cent per annum interest from the date of bill submission till its actual realisation.

Justice Monga said penal interest of 15 per cent per annum, calculated for expiry of 60-day period, would be handed over till actual payment in case of a delay. The penal interest would be recovered from the erring employee’s salary.

Taking up Nirmal Shukla’s plea against the state and other respondents, Justice Monga asserted: “It is rather a harsh case where an unfortunate widow, who lost her husband to the battle of cancer, is being made to run from pillar to post after her husband’s death so as to get medical reimbursement of Rs 41,282 incurred on the treatment of her husband from August 13, 2016 to August 23, 2016, during the period he remained admitted at PGIMER, Chandigarh.”

Justice Monga observed the petitioner’s claim was diverted to Oriental Insurance Company on the ground that the government during the relevant period floated the scheme, making enrolment mandatory for employees to avail cashless benefits. In its absence, the state government was not liable to reimburse medical expenses for that particular year.

Referring to the mitigating circumstances, Justice Monga observed the widow was obviously over-occupied attending her husband suffering from prostate cancer. It was a “over-pedantic view” on state functionaries’ part to expect the widow or the employee to have the knowledge of enrolment with the insurance company. The husband, too, was not in any mental condition or physical state to go and get himself enrolled.