(1986)1985 November 30 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES. P.J IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION ANDREAS PANGOS. Applicant, ι. THE \ i l N i S i R \ OF HEALTH.
- THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH. Respondents. (Case No 22HH!j. Patients —Sponsored patients — The scheme published on 9.9.77 as amended on 2.8.79—Regulations /3 and
- The applicant, who was suffering from a heart ailment. went to England on his own initiative, where he had heart surgery. Ίhe claim, which the applicant put forward, that his expenses be paid by the Government was rejected on the ground thai the applicant went Ό England on his own initiative and without complying wi'h the procedure of the relevant scheme1' and that his case was not an urgent one and. consequently, there was time for a medical board to be convened before he had gone to England. Hence the present recourse. Held, dismissing the recourse, that, in the light of the material placed before the Court, it was reasonably open to the respondents to treat applicant's case as not be'ng - The scheme in question was published in the Official Gazette on 9 9 77 and was amended by a fuither publication on 2 8 79 2698 5 10 15 3 C.L.R. Pangos v. Ministry of Health an urgent one, which could benefit from the special procedure envisaged by regulation 16 of the scheme. Recoursedismissed. No order as to costs. 5 Recourse. Recourse against the refusal of the respondents to accept applicant's claim that the expenses which he incurred when he underwent heart surgery in England should be paid by Government as if he was a "sponsored patient". 10 S. Spyrietakis, for the applicant. R. Gavrielides, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the respondents. Cur. adv. vult. IS 20 25 TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. read the following judgment. The applicant complains, in effect, against the refusal of the respondents to accept his claim that the expenses which he incurred when he underwent heart surgery in England should be paid for by the Government as if he was a "sponsored patient". The claim of the applicant was refused by letters of the respondent Director-General of the Ministry of Health dated 21st April 1981 and 6th June
- The relevant scheme, on the basis of which the applicant's claim was made, was published in the Official Gazette of the Republic on the 9th September 1977 (see No. 1694) and was amended by a further publication in the Official Gazette on the 2nd August 1979 (see No. 1466). The said amendment is not, however, relevant to the determination of the present case because it came into force 2699 Triantafyllides P. Pangos v. Ministry of Health
(1986)after the events which led to the filing of the present recourse. The salient facts of this case are briefly as follows: The applicant was treated for a heart ailment at the General Hospital in Nicosia from the 7th to 11th April 1978 and from the 25th April to the 9th May
- 5 Then the applxant went to England on his own initiative, without having applied in advance of h:s trip that he should be sponsored by Government as a patient under the aforementioned scheme. 10 He underwent certain tests in London on the 18th July 1978 and he had heart surgery on the 22nd July
- It appears that he put forward, for the first time, his claim for his expenses to be paid by Government on the 3rd March
- and it was reiterated on the 8th May
- 15 As already stated his claim was refused; and from the aforement;oned letters by the Director-General of the Ministry of Health, dated 21st April and 6th June 1981, it appears that the reasons for which his claim was refused 20 were that he had gone to England en his own initiative and without complying with the procedure of the relevant scheme, and that his case was not an urgent one and, consequently, there was time for a medxal board to be convened before he had gone to England. 25 It is not disputed that the operation which was performed on the applicant in England became necessary due to an affliction of the coronary arteries of his heart and at that time it was expressly provided by regulation 13 of the scheme that patients needing such surgery would not be 30 sponsored for treatment abroad except in exceptional cases 2700 3 C LR. Pangos v. Ministry of Health Triantafyllides P. and after a special, for this purpose, decision of the Council of Ministers. Under regulation 16 of the scheme provision is made for the payment exceptionally of expenses of patients who have 5 gone to England on their own initiative, provided a medical board decides, after taking into account the nature of the illness, the urgency of the case and all other relevant circumstances, including the diagnosis made abroad and the treatment applied, that it would have recommended 10 the sponsoring, of the patient in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. I have reached the conclusion, after having studied all the material which has been placed before me, includ'ng an affidavit by a medical specialist who has been treating 15 the applicant, Dr. Thr. Spyridakis, dated the 7th June 1982, that the applicant could have complied with the necessary formalities of the scheme before going on to England and that it was reasonably open to the respondents to treat his case as not being an urgent one which could 20 benefit from the special procedure envisaged by regulation 16 of the scheme. As it appears from a report dated the 22nd May 1978 the applicant was examined at the Nicosia General Hospital on the 18th May 1978 by a specialist cardiologist from 25 England, Dr. Lawson McDonald, in consultation with a specialist cardiologist from Cyprus, Dr. L. Pelides, and arrangements were made for him to be further examined in London in July or August
- Thus, there was sufficient time for the applicant to apply to become a sponsored 30 patient under the relevant scheme and he could have sought to secure, under regulation 13 of the scheme, a special decis:on of the Council of Ministers approving the payment of his expenses for the operation of coronary arterial bypass grafting, which was expressly mentioned in the report 35 of Dr. Lawson McDonald dated 22nd May
- It is to be noted that, eventually, the case of the applicant was examined by a medical board in December 1982, 2701 TriantafylUdes P. Pangos v. Ministry of Health
(1986)aftei the filing of the present recourse, and the board reached the conclusion that it could not recommend the ex post facto payment of the expenses of the applicant because he had not complied with the procedure laid down at the time by the relevant scheme and, moreover, because his case was not an urgent one. Against this decision of the medical board no recourse has been filed by the applicant. For all the foregoing reasons I have reached the conclusion that it was reasonably open to the respondents to refuse the claim of the applicant and that this recourse has 1 to be dismissed; but in view of the nature of the case I shall make no order as to its costs. I wish to conclude this judgment by observing that, though the applicant's recourse has failed, this should not prevent the Government from considering the possibility of 1 an ex gratia payment of the whole or of part of the expenses of the applicant if it is found that this is a case meriting the adoption of such a course. Recourse dismissed. No order a. ;n cos!- 2702