IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.5910 of 2007 Date of decision: 23.9.2008 Kundan Lal ......Petitioner Versus Haryana Vidyut Parasaran Nigam Ltd. and another ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for respondent No.1. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.Kumar, J. Costs of Rs.5,000/- have been paid in the Court. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for reimbursement of medical expenses relating to the treatment availed by him for a chronic disease known as Carcinoma Splenic Flexure. The petitioner underwent a composite treatment of surgery, followed by Radiotherapy and then Chemotherapy. On presentation of medical bills, the respondent has approved and reimbursed the medical expenses with regard to indoor treatment which included the bills of surgery as well as Radiotherapy. The claim made by the petitioner regarding the expenses incurred on the treatment of Chemotherapy has been rejected on the ground that the Chemotherapy is a treatment administered in the OPD. The stand taken by the respondents in the written statement is that the petitioner is availing fixed medical allowance and therefore, the treatment CWP No.5910 of 2007 -2- availed by him is not admissible because it was obtained in OPD. Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the considered view that the treatment of the disease, namely, Carcinoma Splenic Flexure has to be treated under a composite scheme which commenced with the surgery and then Radiotherapy followed by Chemotherapy. Neither of these can be separated from each other as all the three dove- tail each other although the treatment of Chemotherapy is given outdoor and therefore, merely on that basis the claim made by the petitioner could not have been rejected. We fail to understand as to how the medical bills with regard to Chemotherapy has been rejected once it is a part of the integrated treatment. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Mr. Raman Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the expenses incurred in respect of Chemotherapy were reflected in the medical bills which were submitted but the bills after processing have been returned to him. He further states that the bills have already been verified and he may be permitted to resubmit the bills within one wee. In view of the above the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner shall re-submit the verified bills within one week and the respondents shall make payment within two weeks thereafter. It is made clear that no further addition in the bill is to be made. Further bill, if any, may be submitted a per rules. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE September 23, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE