C.W.P. No.19922 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.19922 of 2008 Date of Decision:18.05.2010 Jai Ram s/o Shri Rati Ram ........Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana through the Financial Commissioner cum Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Department of Cooperation, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and another ....Respondents Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG, Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. Pardeep Solath, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The claim in the writ petition is for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by the petitioner. There has been no representation by the petitioner for the last two hearings. The counsel for the 2nd respondent is present and in view of the limited area of enquiry in writ petition, I hasten to dispose of the case with the available records and with the assistance of the counsel for the 2nd respondent. 2. The petitioner is alleged to have suffered a heart attack on 17.09.2007 and he has undergone treatment in a hospital, which is C.W.P. No.19922 of 2008 -2- not amongst the approved hospitals by the State of Haryana. Against the bills to the tune of Rs.1,78,180/-, the petitioner was paid Rs.1,33,365. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on government instructions, which have been issued by the Haryana Government on 30.11.1993, according to which for any amount spent in excess to the PGI rates, 75% of the same could not be reimbursed if the treatment has been in any of the approved hospitals. This instruction does not avail any benefit to the petitioner, for, by the very same expression used in the said instructions of the Government, it allows for reimbursement only to the expenses incurred in approved hospitals. Admittedly, the petitioner's treatment has been done in a hospital, which was not an approved hospital by the Haryana Government. 3. The petitioner cannot press to his advantage the instructions claimed through Annexure P-4 for claiming the excess amount of what was alleged to have been spent over the PGI rates. The claim of the petitioner cannot, therefore, be accommodated and the writ petition is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE May 18, 2010 Pankaj*