R.S.A.No. 2990 of 2009(O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2990 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision:August 12, 2009 State of Haryana and others ---Appellants versus Krishna Devi ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Ms. Maloo Chahal,Advocate, for the appellants *** SABINA J. Plaintiff – Smt. Krishna Devi had filed a suit for mandatory injunction. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind vide judgment and decree dated 5.12.2008 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, defendants preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by District Judge, Jind vide judgment and decree dated 16.3.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. The facts of the case as noticed by the learned District Judge, in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment read as under:- “Chander Bhan, husband of the plaintiff was working as a Junior Engineer, with appellant-defendants. He fell ill and was R.S.A.No. 2990 of 2009(O&M) {2} diagnosed to be a patient of chronic renal failure. He was referred to PGI, Chandigarh by General Hospital, Jind. He remained admitted there from 22.11.2003 to 30.11.2003. He was advised kidney transplant. It was done on 27.2.2004. Thus from 26.2.2004 to 9.3.2004 he remained hospitalized. After 30.11.2003 till 26.2.2004 he was put on dialysis. Later, he developed post surgical problems. He was readmitted in PGI, Chandigarh on 8.6.2004. He could not be cured and died on 15.7.2004. There was huge expenditure on his treatment. Medical reimbursement bills along with relevant documents were submitted to his employer for payment; but due to indifferent attitude of the department, the bills remained unpaid. Objections were raised. After removing the objections, the bills were resubmitted. As per instructions of the appellant No. 1 contained in its letter dated 11.3.1992, full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on indoor as well as outdoor treatment is to be made to the plaintiff as outdoor treatment is also integral part of indoor treatment. In this case, outdoor treatment was a follow-up measure of indoor treatment. Instead of showing concern for the widow, the appellant-defendants had been postponing the payment on one score or the other and the total sum spend on treatment of Chander Bhan was Rs. 3,50,000/-, though the bills submitted for reimbursement are of lesser amount. It is further the case of the plaintiff that notice R.S.A.No. 2990 of 2009(O&M) {3} under Section 80 C.P.C. was given to the defendants (now appellants) through her counsel on 19.7.2006 but two bills were again returned by the defendants and were resubmitted after removing the objections on 14.11.2006 but the payment was not made even thereafter. Reimbursement was demanded with interest @ 18% per annum. 3. The defendants (now appellants) filed joint written statement. Various preliminary objections as reflected in the array of issues were taken controverting the allegations of the plaintiff on merits, it was inter alia pleaded that the medical reimbursement bills were sent to the higher competent authorities but were sent back with objections. It was claimed that the plaintiff had not resubmitted the bills after complying with the instructions and removing the objections. It was disclosed that the four bills submitted by the plaintiff had been forwarded to the competent authority for according sanction for payment. It was elaborated that the two bills sent to the plaintiff had not been resubmitted after meeting the objections. It was disclosed that there was no delay in making the payment of bills submitted by the plaintiff but the bills which had not been resubmitted after removing objections could not be paid wit6hout complying with instructions and removing the objections by the plaintiff. Prayer for dismissal of the suit was made.” On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:- R.S.A.No. 2990 of 2009(O&M) {4} “(1)Whether the defendants are liable to reimburse the medical bills of the husband of plaintiff, as alleged? OPP (2)Whether the suit is bad for want of legal notice? OPD (3)Whether the suit is bad for want of advalorem court fees? OPD (4)Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD (5)Whether the plaintiff has not come with clean hands? OPD (6)Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by her own act and conduct? OPD (7)Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. Chander Bhan-husband of the plaintiff was working with the defendants. He suffered from chronic renal failure and was under treatment at P.G.I. and Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32 Chandigarh. Nehali sister of Chander Bhan donated kidney to him and kidney transplant was done on 27.2.2004 at P.G.I., Chandigarh. However, post surgical problems were developed and he died on 15.7.2004. Medical bills in this regard were submitted for reimbursement. However, the defendants had failed to reimburse the medical bills. During the course of arguments, learned State counsel has only challenged the findings of the courts below whereby interest at the rate of 12% per annum (Simple) has been allowed to the plaintiff. Both the courts below after appreciating the evidence led on record by the parties have R.S.A.No. 2990 of 2009(O&M) {5} held that the defendants had failed to reimburse the medical bills despite the fact that the plaintiff had submitted the same. In these circumstances, interest @ of 12% per annum (Simple) allowed by the learned District Judge, after the expiry of three months of respective dates of submission of medical reimbursement bills to the department cannot be said to be on higher side. Learned District Judge had exercised the jurisdiction vested in it while granting interest on account of delay in reimbursement of medical bills. There is no merit in the submissions made by the learned State counsel. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 12, 2009 PARAMJIT