-1- Civil Writ Petition No.14860 of 2005. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: February 29,2008. Mahipal Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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 ? Present: Mr.Anurag Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.O.P. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. Maharaj Kumar, Advocate, for respondents Nos. 2 to 6. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Claim in the present writ petition is for quashing the order dated January 14, 2005 (Annexed with letter dated March -2- Civil Writ Petition No.14860 of 2005. 01, 2005 Annexure P-15) vide which claim of petitioner Mahipal Singh for medical reimbursement on account of the treatment of his wife, namely, Smt.Sudesh from Apollo Hospital, Delhi, has been rejected and for issuing a direction to the respondents to make payment of the expenses incurred by the petitioner in connection with the treatment of Smt. Sudesh. The petitioner is working as a Junior Engineer in the office of Sub Divisional Engineer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sub Division No.1, Gurgaon (respondent No.4). Wife of the petitioner Smt. Sudesh, who was also employed as J.B.T. Teacher with the Education Department, Haryana, was receiving treatment from Sudarshan Poly Dental Centre, Gurgaon. She was referred to Kanshi Ram Medical Service, Gurgaon. Since her condition was critical, she was admitted as an emergency case in Apollo Hospital, Delhi. On May 10, 2001, the doctor opined that she was suffering from blood cancer. The petitioner suffered huge expenses on the treatment of his wife in Apollo Hospital, Delhi. He claims to have spent Rs.6, 18,276.10. The petitioner submitted claim of medical reimbursement of the aforesaid expenses to the respondent-Department through proper channel. However, it was rejected on the ground that the treatment had not been taken from a hospital not recognized by the State of Haryana at the relevant time. Earlier, the petitioner had challenged the order/letter dated September 02, 2003 (Annexure P-13) by way of filing Civil -3- Civil Writ Petition No.14860 of 2005. Writ Petition No.2203 of 2004. In Annexure P-13, for rejecting the claim of the petitioner, besides taking the ground that the treatment had not been taken from a hospital recognized by the State of Haryana, the respondent-Department had taken another plea that wife of the petitioner was employed as a J.B.T. Teacher and she may take the matter regarding reimbursement of medical claim with her department. The said writ petition was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated August 24, 2004 (Annexure P-14) and the order dated September 02, 2003 (Annexure P-13) was quashed by relying upon the instructions issued by the State of Haryana on July 14, 2002, contained in HD. Hr. No.2/59/88-IHB-III dated July 17, 19992, which provide that if both the spouses (husband-wife) are employees of the State Government, any one of them shall be allowed to get the fixed medical allowance/reimbursement of medical charges. In that writ petition, counsel for the petitioner also made a statement that he restricted the claim for medical reimbursement to the rates of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi (for short `the A.I.I.M.S'). The respondents were directed to finalize the claim of the petitioner for reimbursement of medical expenses within two months from the date of the order i.e August 24, 2004. On notice, the respondent-Department contested the claim of the petitioner for medical reimbursement on the ground that the Apollo Hospital, Delhi, from which the petitioner had -4- Civil Writ Petition No.14860 of 2005. taken treatment for his wife Smt.Sudesh was not recognized for the treatment of Haryana Government Employees during the treatment period of Smt.Sudesh from May 10, 2001 to July 11, 2001 and the Apollo Hospital was recognized for this purpose with effect from October 21, 2002 vide Annexure R-1. Though the plea of the respondents that the wife of the petitioner could have taken reimbursement of medical expenses from her department as she was employed as a J.B.T. Teacher in the Education Department of Haryana was rejected by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated August 24, 2004 (Annexure P-14) passed in Civil Writ Petition No.2203 of 2004, yet the respondent-department have taken this plea again in the written statement. We have heard Mr.Anurag Goyal, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, Mr.O.P. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. Maharaj Kumar, Advocate, appearing for respondents Nos. 2 to 6 and have gone through the records of the case. While arguing before us, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the objection regarding treatment in a private hospital could not be sustained in the eyes of law in view of the state of emergency arisen because of excessive bleeding from gums of petitioner's wife on May 07, 2001. The petitioner took her immediately to Sudarshan Poly Dental Centre, Gurgaon where she was given treatment on May 07, -5- Civil Writ Petition No.14860 of 2005. 2001 and May 08, 2001. On May 09, 2001, Dr.Surajpal Sharma of Sudarshan Poly Dental Centre referred the patient to Kanshi Ram Medical Service, Gurgaon. The petitioner took her wife to Dr.Jai Bhagwan of Kanshi Ram Medical Service, Gurgaon, on May 09, 2001 itself, where her condition became critical and she was taken to Apollo Hospital, Delhi, as an emergency case. On May 09, 2001, she was admitted as an emergency case in Apollo Hospital, Delhi. After investigation, on May 10, 2001, the Doctors of Apollo Hospital opined that she was suffering from blood cancer. The petitioner had no time at all to shift the patient to other recognized hospital or to get the patient referred through Medical Superintendent / Civil Surgeon, Government Hospital, Gurgaon, as required under the relevant rules. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, has stressed the point that as the treatment had been taken from a hospital which was not recognized by the respondent-Department, the claim for medical reimbursement was rightly rejected. We are unable to restrain ourselves from observing that the respondents' plea is not only unsustainable but is totally bereft of any plausible reason. The stand of the respondents does not merit consideration in view of the admitted facts that the condition of the patient had deteriorated to such an extent that she had to be admitted in Apollo Hospital, Delhi, as a case of emergency and she had been diagnosed to be suffering -6- Civil Writ Petition No.14860 of 2005. from blood cancer. Although Apollo Hospital, Delhi, was not recognized for the treatment of Haryana Government Employees during the treatment period of Smt.Sudesh from May 10, 2001 to July 11, 2001, but it was recognized for this purpose with effect from October 21, 2002 as per Annexure R-1. Admittedly, Batra Hospital, Delhi, Escorts Hospital, Delhi, and A.I.I,M.S, Delhi were also the nearest available recognized hospitals from which the petitioner was authorized to take treatment for his wife and claim medical reimbursement. It is not disputed that Batra Hospital, Delhi and Escorts Hospital, Delhi have no specialization for treatment of the disease from which the petitioner's wife was suffering. Batra Hospital, New Delhi and Escorts Hospital, Delhi, are known for treatment of heart ailments. However, in the present case, wife of the petitioner was diagnosed to be suffering from blood cancer. So far as the availability of medical facilities at the institute like the A.I.I. M.S, Delhi, is concerned, normally the waiting period is so much that the emergency patients most of the times cannot be entertained and they are referred to other hospitals. It is worth noticing that it is only in dire emergency that a person reaches the hospital where immediate treatment can be given. In a case where the life of a human being is at stake, it is too technical to require such a person to hunt for a list of the approved hospitals and then decide which hospital to go in emergency situation. Sometimes, such hospitals may not be able to accommodate the -7- Civil Writ Petition No.14860 of 2005. patient and at that time the attendant is not expected to first look into the list of approved/recognized hospitals for medical reimbursement and then proceed for treatment. Such procedures should not be expected to be followed in an emergency by the attendant of the patient. If such regulations are applied so strictly, it would result in a disastrous situation and the patient may die. The act committed in an emergency should not be weighed in terms of money, especially when human life is at stake. The provision of free medical treatment or reimbursement in lieu thereof being a beneficial act of the welfare State for its employees, the rules/instructions have to be construed liberally in favour of the employees, for granting them the relief. The authorities are not supposed to adopt a wooden attitude and stick to technicalities while dealing with human problems. There can be no mathematical precision while dealing with human beings. We cannot lose sight of the factual situation that the wife of the petitioner had been diagnosed to be suffering from blood cancer and had to be got admitted in Apollo Hospital, Delhi, as a emergency case and required a specialized treatment. It was also not expected of the petitioner to request to the authorities at that point of time for granting him permission to take treatment for his wife from a particular hospital. We are of the considered view that refusal of claim of the petitioner is unreasonable, unjust and arbitrary. The -8- Civil Writ Petition No.14860 of 2005. impugned order is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We, accordingly, allow this writ petition and set aside the order whereby claim of the petitioner for medical reimbursement has been rejected. The respondents are directed to reimburse to the petitioner the amount equal to the rates of A.I.I.M.S, Delhi. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE JUDGE February 29, 2008. ak