News Update

SC grants relief to Chidambaram in ED case till Monday but no succour in CBI caseFATF Asia-Pacific Group puts Pakistan in 'enhanced blacklist'Sabka Vishwas Scheme to end on Dec 31, 2019GST - Petitioner encountered technical glitch in payment of GST for seven months - it would be appropriate to leave it to the technical body concerned to decide whether there was a technical glitch at all: HCVAT - It is one thing to say that Petitioner had violated provisions of Central Excise Act, but another to immediately infer that it also violated provisions of DVAT Act: HCCX - In case of reversal of proportionate credit attributable to exempted goods/services, further demand in terms of Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004 is unsustainable: CESTATCus - Appellant has not suppressed any fact from Department to the extent that license which was submitted for clearance of imported consignment is issued by DGFT, although the same is claimed to have been obtained fraudulently by seller of licence M/s Nilesh International: CESTATAdditions u/s 14A are sustained where shares are held as stock in trade & such investments do not fall within ambit of Rule 8D(iii): ITATPurchases cannot be treated as genuine where although backed by bills & proof of payment, dealers admit to have provided accommodation entries in statements before sales tax authority: ITATAdditions u/s 68 on account of bogus Short Term Capital Loss are unsustainable where based on statements which are uncorroborated by supporting evidence: ITAT August 23 2019Unexplained expenses cannot be disallowed where PAN & address of recipient parties is submitted to AO, who in turn failed to verify same by issuing notice u/s 133(6): ITATPenalty notice is defective & vitiated proceedings where it does not specify charges based on which penalty is being levied: ITATACC appoints Ajay Kumar Bhalla as New Home SecretaryBenefit u/s 80IA available to start-ups having turnover of above Rs 25 CrContinuing protectionist policies would cause global recession: GoyalGovt relaxes lease rent charges on wind power projectsCBIC also raises monetary limits for indirect tax casesSabka Vishwas Scheme - Rules with Form notifiedCBIC extends validity of 2% BED on ATF drawn from RCS-UDAN airport or heliport or waterdromeGovt notifies GSTAT benches for all States & UTsSabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme to be effective from Sept 1Services of short term accommodation procured in Haryana by appellant registered in Rajasthan - ITC of the Central tax charged by supplier (hotel) is not available: AAARActivities of supply, design, installation, commissioning and testing of solar energy based water pumping systems, whose time of supply falls after 31.12.2018 are both, supply of goods and supply of services: AAARAppellant is not sure as to which sub-entry is applicable and are pursuing each and every sub-entry which prescribes the minimum rate of tax: AAARST - Concluding that no interest is payable since the refund was paid within three months from the date of final order of the CESTAT is an incorrect reading of s.11BB of CEA, 1944: CESTATST - Essential character of service rendered is Scientific and Technical consultancy service and the same cannot be divided into different services for the purpose of computing Tax: CESTATWrit Court need not intervene against an order passed by AO where assessee has alternate remedy of filing appeal before the CIT(A): HCDTC leveraging Tax Technology - Idea whose Time has come!
 
Mega relief for pensioners - SC rules CGHS beneficiaries not to be denied reimbursement for hospitalization expenses in emergency

BY TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, APR 13, 2018: THE issue before the Apex Court in this case is whether CGHS beneficiaries can be denied reimbursement where they receive treatment in private hospitals in emergency circumstances. NO is the verdict.

Facts of the case

The petitioner is a beneficiary of the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS). He is entitled to receive treatment in private ward for life. He filed two bills claiming reimbursement of expenses incurred during treatment received in two private hospitals. Suffering from cardiac ailments, he had a CRT-D device implanted. Later, the Technical Standing Committee rejected the first bill without giving reasons for rejecting it. Later it claimed that the petitioner did not require the CRT-D device. Later, the Committee observed that its approval was not sought for receiving implant of such device. Thereupon, the petitioner approached the Director General of the CGHS, after which a sum of about Rs 5 lakhs was credited to his account. However no speaking order was communicated to the petitioner in this regard. Regarding the second set of bills, the petitioner's claim was restricted to one-fourth of the original amount claimed. Such order too was passed without granting opportunity of personal hearing. Hence in totality for both bills, the petitioner received less than half of the total expenses incurred out of his own resources. Although in an interim order, this Court had directed disbursement of Rs 3 lakhs to the petitioner, the present writ was filed, highlighting the petitioner's advanced age and need for funds to continue treatment.

On hearing the matter, the Apex Court was of the view that,

++ It is a settled legal position that the Government employee during his life time or after his retirement is entitled to get the benefit of the medical facilities and no fetters can be placed on his rights. It is acceptable to common sense, that ultimate decision as to how a patient should be treated vests only with the Doctor, who is well versed and expert both on academic qualification and experience gained. Very little scope is left to the patient or his relative to decide as to the manner in which the ailment should be treated. Speciality Hospitals are established for treatment of specified ailments and services of Doctors specialized in a discipline are availed by patients only to ensure proper, required and safe treatment. Can it be said that taking treatment in Speciality Hospital by itself would deprive a person to claim reimbursement solely on the ground that the said Hospital is not included in the Government Order. The right to medical claim cannot be denied merely because the name of the hospital is not included in the Government Order. The real test must be the factum of treatment. Before any medical claim is honoured, the authorities are bound to ensure as to whether the claimant had actually taken treatment and the factum of treatment is supported by records duly certified by Doctors/Hospitals concerned. Once, it is established, the claim cannot be denied on technical grounds. Clearly, in the present case, by taking a very inhuman approach, the officials of the CGHS have denied the grant of medical reimbursement in full to the petitioner forcing him to approach this Court.

++ This is hardly a satisfactory state of affairs. The relevant authorities are required to be more responsive and cannot in a mechanical manner deprive an employee of his legitimate reimbursement. The Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) was propounded with a purpose of providing health facility scheme to the central government employees so that they are not left without medical care after retirement. It was in furtherance of the object of a welfare State, which must provide for such medical care that the scheme was brought in force. In the facts of the present case, it cannot be denied that the writ petitioner was admitted in the above said hospitals in emergency conditions. Moreover, the law does not require that prior permission has to be taken in such situation where the survival of the person is the prime consideration. The doctors did his operation and had implanted CRT-D device and have done so as one essential and timely. Though it is the claim of the respondent-State that the rates were exorbitant whereas the rates charged for such facility shall be only at the CGHS rates and that too after following a proper procedure given in the Circulars issued on time to time by the concerned Ministry, it also cannot be denied that the petitioner was taken to hospital under emergency conditions for survival of his life which requirement was above the sanctions and treatment in empanelled hospitals.

++ In the present view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the CGHS is responsible for taking care of healthcare needs and well being of the central government employees and pensioners. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of opinion that the treatment of the petitioner in non-empanelled hospital was genuine because there was no option left with him at the relevant time. We, therefore, direct the respondent-State to pay the balance amount of Rs. 4,99,555/- to the writ petitioner. We also make it clear that the said decision is confined to this case only.

++ Further, with regard to the slow and tardy pace of disposal of MRC by the CGHS in case of pensioner beneficiaries and the unnecessary harassment meted out to pensioners who are senior citizens, affecting them mentally, physically and financially, we are of the opinion that all such claims shall be attended by a Secretary level High Powered Committee in the concerned Ministry which shall meet every month for quick disposal of such cases. We, hereby, direct the concerned Ministry to device a Committee for grievance redressal of the retired pensioners consisting of Special Directorate General, Directorate General, 2 (two) Additional Directors and 1 (one) Specialist in the field which shall ensure timely and hassle free disposal of the claims within a period of 7 (seven) days. We further direct the concerned Ministry to take steps to form the Committee as expeditiously as possible. Further, the above exercise would be futile if the delay occasioned at the very initial stage, i.e., after submitting the relevant claim papers to the CMO-I/C, therefore, we are of the opinion that there shall be a timeframe for finalization and disbursement of the claim amounts of pensioners. In this view, we are of the opinion that after submitting the relevant papers for claim by a pensioner, the same shall be reimbursed within a period of 1 (one) month.

(See 2018-TIOL-136-SC-MISC)