JUDGMENT
A.K. Basheer, J.
1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing appellant No.1 to reconsider the request of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 for financial assistance for medical treatment.
2. Respondent No.1 is admittedly a fisherman and a member registered under the Kerala Fisherman Welfare Fund Board. He is afflicted with Rheumatoid Arthritis and has lost vision in his right eye. It was further averred by respondent No. 1 in the Writ Petition that he had got only partial vision in his left eye. According to respondent No. 1, he had made several requests to the Board for financial assistance. Ultimately, he had approached the Kerala Human Rights Commission for appropriate direction to the Board to grant him assistance. By order dated February 8, 2002, the Human Rights Commission had directed respondent No. 1 to submit an application to the Board for financial assistance and the Board in turn was directed to consider the application expeditiously. Pursuant to the above direction, respondent No. 1 submitted Ext.P2 application before the Board on April 1, 2002 praying for grant of financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs towards medical expenses incurred by him for the period from 1990 to 2002. But no action whatsoever was taken by the Board on the above application. In the meanwhile, the case of respondent No.1 was taken up by the Kerala State Legal Services Authority and another service organisation. But still, the Board did not accede to the request of respondent No.1. In its reply dated April 2, 2004 addressed to the Member Secretary of the Kerala State Legal Services Authority, the Commissioner of the Board informed that since the petitioner was suffering from Rheumatoid Arthritis, he was not eligible to get any financial assistance as reported by him. A copy of the above reply was produced as Ext.P7. It was in the above circumstances that respondent No. 1 had filed the Writ Petition praying for a direction to the Board to grant him an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs as financial assistance for his medical treatment.
3. The Board in its counter affidavit averred that respondent No.1 was not entitled to get financial assistance since the disease he is afflicted with, does not come within the purview of the Scheme formulated by the Board for the said purpose. It was also averred that the present financial position of the Board was not good enough to provide assistance to respondent No.1 and that too for a disease which did not come within the purview of the guidelines framed under the Scheme. The learned Single Judge took the view that the intention of the Scheme being to render assistance to those fishermen who were not able to do any work, the Board was not justified in contending that respondent No.1 was not suffering from any one of the six diseases mentioned in the guidelines. The learned Judge therefore directed the Board to take a “human approach” and reconsider the case of respondent No. 1 “with required indulgence”.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Board cannot go beyond the guidelines formulated by it under the Scheme which provides for grant of financial assistance for certain fatal diseases. A copy of the Scheme has been produced as Annexure I along with the memorandum of appeal. It is true that the Scheme has been framed with a view to render assistance to those fishermen who satisfy the eligibility criteria stipulated in the Scheme and who require assistance for the following treatments: (1) heart surgery, (2) kidney transplantation, (3) cancer treatment, (4) paralysis, (5) psychic disorder with loss of sense; and (6) filariasis of grievous nature.
5. Undoubtedly, Rheumatoid Arthritis does not fall, within the enumerated category of diseases mentioned above. But it is pertinent to note that the appellants have not disputed the fact that respondent No.1 had been bedridden since 1990 due to Rheumatoid Arthritis. To make things worse, he had lost his vision in the right eye due to the disease. It is also on record that the vision in his left eye is rapidly deteriorating. The appellants do not have a case that respondent No. 1 has sufficient financial capability to meet the medical expenses. In short, there is no dispute about the pitiable plight of the appellant who has been bedridden for well over a decade.
6. The Board had framed the guidelines in the year 1995, as is revealed from Annexure I Scheme produced by the appellants. The contention of the Board is that Rheumatoid Arthritis not being a disease recognised under the Scheme, it is not possible to render any assistance to respondent No.1. But it can be seen that paralysis is one of the diseases enumerated under the Scheme. Paralysis means palsy, a loss of power of motion or sensation in any part of the body. It also means deprivation of power of action. (Chambers 20th Century Dictionary). Rheumatoid Arthritis is a chronic progressive disease causing inflammation and stiffening of the joint. That respondent No. 1 has been afflicted with Rheumatoid Arthritis and that he has been bedridden since 1990, is beyond dispute. He has lost his vision in the right eye too. This being the physical condition of respondent No. 1, how can the action of the appellants be justified? Curiously, Filariasis is one of the diseases enumerated under the Scheme. If Filariasis could be included among the six enumerated diseases, a patient who is suffering from Rheumatoid Arthritis and who has been bedridden for nearly 15 years will undoubtedly be eligible for financial assistance under the Scheme.
7. Undoubtedly the Scheme framed by the Board is a laudable welfare measure. Any provision or clause in a welfare legislation or Scheme, as the case may be, has to be construed and interpreted liberally. The attempt should never be to deprive the needy and eligible the benefit of the benevolent legislation or Scheme. An earnest endeavour should be made to reach out to the victim and wipe the tears of sufferings. The intent and purport of the legislation must be borne in mind while dealing with the provisions contained in any welfare legislation or scheme. There is no room for a pedantic view while interpreting the provisions contained in a welfare statute.
8. There is yet another aspect of the matter. From Ext.Pl order passed by the Human Rights Commission, it is revealed that Fisheries Officer, Kannamaly who is appellant No. 2 in this appeal, had filed a status report with regard to the condition of respondent No.1 in the year 2002. The Commission had noted that the enquiry officer had admitted that respondent No.1 was “seriously laid up with Rheumatism and that his right eye sight has been lost”. The Officer had further reported that respondent No. 1 had only partial sight in his left eye. The stand taken by the Fisheries Officer before the Commission was that respondent No. 1 had not submitted any application to the Board for financial assistance.
9. As mentioned earlier, the Commission had disposed of the complaint filed by respondent No.1 in February 2002. In April, 2002 respondent No.1 had applied for financial assistance to the Board. But the Board had refused to take any action on the application. In Ext.P7 reply the appellant Board had informed the Member Secretary of KELSA that the application submitted by respondent No. 1 was rejected since his case did not come within the purview of the Scheme and that the rejection of the application was communicated to respondent No. 1. But in the counter affidavit the Board had no such case. Interestingly, in Ext.P7 communication the Commissioner of the Board admitted that an application for financial assistance was in fact received by the Board on. November 15, 1996. At that time, the Board had offered Rs. 1000/-. But this amount was understandably refused by respondent No. 1.
10. We have adverted to the above aspects of the case only to show that the attitude of the Board has been totally callous and indifferent. Though the Board had taken up a contention that respondent No. 1 had not made any request for financial assistance, it is the admitted position now that an application was in fact made by respondent No. 1 way back in 1996. In our view, the Board is not at all justified in taking such an indifferent attitude. The Board has to necessarily face the consequences.
11. In our view, the learned Single Judge was justified in issuing a direction to the appellants to reconsider the case of respondent No. 1 with required indulgence, though a more positive direction might have been desirable and appropriate. Since respondent No.1 has not filed an appeal against the above judgment, we do not propose to issue any further direction. However, we make it clear that the appellants shall pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 application submitted by respondent No. 1 keeping in view the observations made in this judgment.
12. The Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed. We do so. In the facts and circumstances, appellant No.1, the Kerala Fishermen Welfare Fund Board, Thrissur shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as cost to respondent No. 1 within 15 days of receipt of a copy of this judgment. A final decision on Ext.P2 shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.