Civil Writ Petition No.11560 of 1998 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11560 of 1998 Date of decision: September 15, 2010. Rohtas Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Haryana ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Shri Himanshu Raj, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for respondents No.1, 2 and 4. Shri Sidharath Batra, Advocate, for respondents No.3 & 5. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): In this writ petition, a prayer has been made that the respondents be directed to reimburse the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner as per the directions issued by the State of Haryana from time to time. The petitioner was working as Junior Scale Stenographer in the office of respondent No.2 – Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA). He remained posted at Rohtak District from the date of his appointment. On his promotion as an Assistant, he was transferred to Panchkula where he joined in January 1986. Petitioner has given the details of places where he was being transferred from time to time. However, it Civil Writ Petition No.11560 of 1998 -: 2 :- will be apposite to notice that on 21.5.1998, the petitioner was working in the office of Estate Officer, HUDA, Sonepat. In August, 1997, petitioner learnt that his kidneys had failed and one kidney donated by his brother was transplanted by way of operation conducted at Batra Hospital and Research Centre Public Charitable Trust, New Delhi. At the time of transplantation of the kidney, it is stated that, the petitioner was posted at Gurgaon but on his representation, he was transferred from Gurgaon to Sonepat on medical grounds. Case set up by the petitioner is that surgery was conducted on 16.2.1998 and he was discharged from hospital on 10.3.1998. Thereafter, he was advised to get follow-up treatment through OPD. The kidney donated by his brother was not accepted by the body of the petitioner. Thus, he had to take treatment continuously from PGI, Rohtak. Petitioner submitted medical bills amounting to Rs.3,29,195/- on 11.6.1998 for reimbursement, which were forwarded by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Sonepat to the Administrator, HUDA, Faridabad for approval. It is stated that the medical bill of the petitioner were not dealt with for a long period of time and he was only paid Rs.6,000/- towards OPD charges. Later on, the respondents have reimbursed only Rs.1,40,867.75 against the bills of Rs.3,29,195/- submitted on 11.6.1998. It is stated that the respondents have given no reasons for curtailing the payment of medical bills. Petitioner relied upon Govt. instructions, Annexure P-11, issued on 13.11.1993, according to which reimbursement of the medical bill was to be made to the petitioner equal to rates of AIIMS or PGI, Rohtak. Relevant part of the instructions Annexure P-11 reads as under:- “... A decision has been taken for those employees who get the Civil Writ Petition No.11560 of 1998 -: 3 :- treatment from these institution, the rates will be paid equal to the chargs of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and PGI, Rohtak. If the expenditrue is more than AIIMS or PGI then 75% amount will be paid and 25% expenditure will be spent by the claimant. If claimant took the facility of extra comfort as single room instead of double room occupancy room, the expenditure of the same will be paid by the claimant. And the total 75% advance amount will be paid to the claimant of their total bill for this claimant should get permission from department....” Instructions Annexure P-11 specify that Batra Hospital, New Delhi is recognized for the surgery undertaken by the petitioner. Respondents have stated that case of the petitioner was referred to the Director, Medical Health Services and they opined that payment of the tests undertaken is to be made at the rate of Rs.150/- in a day and medical treatment in OPD is not reimbursible. Lastly, they have stated that the expenses incurred for the treatment of his brother are not reimbursible. I have heard counsel for the parties. It is apparent that the stand taken by the respondents that the expenses incurred for medical tests are only to be restricted to Rs.150/- in a day, by no reason is tenable. It is common knowledge that tests for transplantation of kidney are very costly, say for one day, MRI or CT Scan is to be conducted and then the charges for same are more than Rs.6,000/- or so, to restrict to Rs.150/- per day is highly unjust. Therefore, this part of the policy cannot be accepted. It is stated that the Government, based on various judgments of Civil Writ Petition No.11560 of 1998 -: 4 :- this Court, has revised the policy and has stated that in case, lab test/investigation for indoor/chronic patients are not available in the government hospitals in the State of Haryana, then reimbursement will be allowed equal to PGI, Chandigarh rates after obtaining non-availability certificate. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the subsequent policy is more rationale and accordingly petitioner is held entitled to reimbursement of medical tests undertaken in consonance with this policy. The payment shall be made to him as per PGI rates. The brother of the petitioner has donated the kidney. In the policy which has been adopted in 2005, it has been specifically stated as under:- “5. Kidney Donors: the reimbursement on the expenditure for operating upon the donor is permissible only if the treatment has been taken in a Government approved hospital as it is a planned procedure.” Therefore, all expenses incurred by the petitioner for transplantation of kidney for treatment of the donor shall also be reimbursed by the respondents. An argument has been raised by Counsel for HUDA that since policy of 1993 envisages no expenses to be paid for treatment of the donor, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for the reimbursement for treatment of the donor, has to be rejected as this argument by no reason can be held to be valid. Kidney is donated for the treatment of the employee of the respondent, therefore, it is integral part of the surgery procedure. Thus, 2005 policy only fills the lacuna which was existing in 1993 policy. A Division Bench of this Court in Ravi Kant v. State of Civil Writ Petition No.11560 of 1998 -: 5 :- Haryana, 1998(4) SCT 206 has held that in case a kidney failure, all outdoor expenses incurred by the patient are to be borne by the employer. This view was further followed by another Division Bench of this Court in Surjit Singh v. Managing Director, PRTC and others, 2005(2) SCT 136, wherein it was held that post-operational necessary follow-up treatment is to be considered in continuation of the indoor treatment and is also to be liable to be reimbursed. Again, this view was reiterated by another Division Bench of this Court in Secretary to Government Punjab, Higher Education and Language Department, Punjab and others v. Smt. Harbhajan Kaur LR of Shri Ajit Singh Kakkar, 2006(4) SCT 476. Para 6 of the judgment reads as under:- “6. The above observations clearly show that the claim of the respondent for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by him is justified. Besides, the pronouncements of law by this Court as noticed above have held that an eligible employee/pensioner would be entitled to reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred as an outdoor patient. This position has been reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in C.B. Gupta v. State of Haryana, 2003(1) SCT 316 : (2003-1) PLR 343 to which one of us (S.S. Nijjar, J.) was a party. Besides, it may also be noticed that Civil Appeal No. 4302 of 1999 titled Punjab State Electricity Board v. Jagsir S. Sandhu has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 27.11.2001. Besides, Civil Appeal No. 2463-2464 of 1999 titled M.D., Sirsa Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and another v. Ravi Kant and others was dismissed as withdrawn by the Supreme Court on Civil Writ Petition No.11560 of 1998 -: 6 :- 12.2.2001. In the circumstances, the action of the appellants making a distinction between those getting medical treatment as indoor patient and those getting as outdoor patient for the purposes of medical reimbursement is clearly unsustainable and has no rational basis of any object to be achieved. This is moreso for the reason that it is conceded position by the appellants itself that had the respondent undergone the dialysis as an indoor patient in any government hospital he would have been entitled to some, if not full, medical reimbursement for the expenses incurred.” As per the view propounded by the Division Bench, the petitioner is also entitled to reimbursement of outdoor expenses. In view of the observations made above, respondents are directed to re-appraise the medical bills submitted by the petitioner and make payment thereof to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of, with no order as to costs. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] September 15, 2010. Judge kadyan