Restore medical treatment of ex-serviceman's dependent under ECHS regardless of PWD Act listing: AFT to MoD
Chandigarh: The ministry of defence (MoD) cannot deny medical treatment under the Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS) to dependents of a member merely because their ailment is not listed as a disability under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (PWD) Act, 2016, according to an Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) ruling.
The tribunal also clarified that the authorities are supposed to consider practical as well as compassionate aspects when cancelling or withdrawing any policy or letter and "are under obligation to see that no one is harmed".
A division bench comprising Justice Anil Kumar, judicial member, and Vice Admiral Atul Kumar Jain, administration member of AFT Lucknow, passed these orders while allowing an application filed by Sheela Devi, widow of Havildar Ganga Sahay.
She sought directions to issue an order to the MoD to continue her son's treatment after a kidney transplant, which was stopped after he turned 25 years, as per a policy letter dated Dec 5, 2017, issued by the ministry of defence (DoESW).
The applicant's husband joined the Indian Army in 1974, was discharged from service in 1996, and died in 2003. Thereafter, the applicant was issued an ECHS card, which included all her family members.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Keep Your Home Efficient with This Plug-In
elecTrick - Save upto 80% on Power Bill
Learn More
Undo
Her son, Mohit Kumar, was admitted to the Command Hospital, Lucknow, in Aug 2021 and was diagnosed with 'Advanced Renal Dysfunction with Small Echogenic Kidney' and was advised to undergo a kidney transplant.
The applicant donated a kidney to her son, which was transplanted on June 14, 2023, and since then, her son has been under treatment through ECHS. However, she was informed by the authorities that her son does not fall under the PWD Act, 2016, and therefore, he is not eligible for further treatment through ECHS beyond the age of 25.
Aggrieved by the authorities' decision, she approached the AFT Lucknow. She contended that after her husband's death, she is in a financial crisis as she does not have any other source of income except a meagre family pension.
The counsel for the applicant further submitted that her son's disability (chronic kidney disease) being a renal transplant case was permanent in nature and assessed at 80-90%. He also submitted that the treatment could not be stopped on the grounds of the disease not being included in the list of disabilities under the PWD Act, 2016, as he has been under treatment for chronic kidney disease since Aug 2021.
Counsel representing the MoD reiterated that the treatment of the applicant's son was stopped as per rules because the kidney disease is not included in the list of 21 disabilities under the PWD Act, 2016, and her son has crossed the permissible age of 25 years.
After hearing all the parties, the AFT held that the authorities acted in a very casual manner without considering the fact that he is suffering from a serious kidney ailment that threatens his life.
In its detailed order released last week, the AFT further directed the MoD to restore or restart the treatment, considering it as a special case, and to reimburse the expenses incurred by the applicant in the treatment of her son from the date of stoppage of the treatment until its actual restoration.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
11 hours ago
- Time of India
‘Inappropriate to claim man intentionally hid disease': Insurance firm ordered to pay
Raipur: The Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed an insurance firm backed by a nationalised bank to pay Rs 50 lakh to Savitri Salam, whose husband's insurance claim was initially rejected. The commission found that the insurer failed to conclusively prove concealment of pre-existing diseases by the deceased. Savitri Salam, a resident of Surdongar village in Keshkal tehsil, filed a complaint after her husband's health deteriorated, leading to his demise on 16 June 2021. She sought a claim under a policy taken by her husband, but the insurance firm rejected it, alleging that he provided incorrect information about his pre-existing medical conditions and treatment in the proposal form. The insurance company argued before the district consumer commission that the insured suffered from diabetes and heart disease prior to taking the policy, and this was noted in his medical records from AIIMS, Raipur, as part of his medical history. Based on this, the claim was rejected due to misrepresentation of health information in the proposal form. The District Consumer Commission, Kanker, accepted Savitri Salam's complaint and directed the insurance company to pay the full claim amount within one month. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn IC Markets Đăng ký Undo The insurance company then challenged this order before the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. During the appeal hearing, the bench of Justice Gautam Chourdiya, president, and Pramod Kumar Varma, member, determined that the claim was rejected solely based on a note in the AIIMS, Raipur, medical record. No other medical records were presented to conclusively prove that the insured suffered from diabetes and heart disease before applying for the policy, underwent any prior treatment, or was on continuous medication. The commission observed there was no evidence to suggest that the insured was aware of these conditions when he submitted the proposal. The state commission concluded that it was not appropriate to claim the insured intentionally concealed important facts about his pre-existing diseases in the proposal. The appeal was rejected, and the insurance company has been directed to pay Rs 50 lakh from the life insurance claim, after deducting the Rs 56,621 premium amount already refunded to Savitri Salam by the insurance company. This amount will also include 7% annual simple interest from the date the complaint was filed (27 Dec 2023).
New Indian Express
21 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Telangana HC seeks explanation over delay in opening government hospital
HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court on Wednesday pulled up the state government for the inordinate delay in making operational a fully constructed and equipped 100-bedded government hospital in Alampur, Jogulamba Gadwal district. The court directed the government to file its response within two weeks, explaining the reasons for not commencing regular medical services at the facility. A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara expressed serious concern over the continued inaction, questioning why the hospital - built at a cost of Rs 21 crore and completed in October 2023 - remains non-functional even 18 months after completion. During the hearing, Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul observed, 'A 100-bedded hospital has been constructed in Alampur, but the state government is not opening it, not providing staff, and the equipment remains unused.' The Bench directed the government counsel to obtain clear instructions from relevant departments on the reasons for the delay. The directive came in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by social activist and politician S Ramchandra Reddy, a resident of Ieeja in Jogulamba Gadwal district. The petitioner alleged that despite several representations to the authorities, the hospital has not been made functional, depriving the people of Alampur of basic medical services.
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
Telangana HC pulls up govt over delay in opening Alampur govt hospital
Hyderabad: The Telangana high court on Friday came down heavily on the state govt for the 18-month delay in operationalising a 100-bed govt hospital in Alampur, Jogulamba Gadwal district , despite the facility being fully constructed and equipped. A division bench comprising acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara was hearing a PIL filed by Ramchandra Reddy, a social activist and politician from the district. The court expressed concern over the prolonged inaction and directed the govt and relevant departments to file a detailed counter-affidavit within two weeks, explaining the reasons for the delay. The petitioner informed the court that the hospital was built with ₹21 crore sanctioned in 2021, and construction was completed by Oct 2023. However, despite being fully equipped, the hospital has not been made operational. He added that the unused building is now lying vacant and vulnerable to misuse by anti-social elements. Highlighting the demographic and social context, the petitioner noted that Alampur is an SC reserved constituency, home to a large population from Dalit and Backward Classes communities. The absence of a functioning public hospital, he argued, violates residents' fundamental right to health , as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Due to the non-functional hospital, locals are reportedly forced to travel long distances-to Kurnool, Gadwal, or even Hyderabad-for basic medical care. Taking note of these submissions, Justice Sujoy Paul observed that despite constructing a 100-bed hospital, the state had neither appointed staff nor operationalised services, leaving costly equipment idle and unutilised. The case will be taken up for further hearing after the state submits its explanation.
