IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 15411 of 2010 Date of Decision: August 30, 2010 Union of India …Petitioner Versus Diwan Singh and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Brijeshwar Singh Kanwar, Central Govt. Counsel, for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges order dated 5.2.2010 (P-4), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’), allowing O.A. No. 513/PB/2009 filed by the applicant-respondent No. 1 and directing the petitioner Union of India to re-examine the medical bill and grant him the medical reimbursement at the rates charged by the PGI, Chandigarh for similar medical procedure, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 2. The facts are not in dispute. On 23.6.2008, the applicant- respondent No. 1 was admitted in the PGI, Chandigarh and Coronary Angiography was done on him. On 30.6.2008, the applicant-respondent No. 1 developed severe chest pain and he was rushed to the nearest hospital, namely, CWP No. 15411 of 2010 Fortis Hospital, Mohali, where Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting was conducted on 1.7.2008. He remained admitted there from 30.6.2008 to 8.7.2008. Subsequently, the applicant submitted his medical bills of Rs. 2,00,298/- for reimbursement along with the requisite documents. However, the petitioner rejected the claim on the premise that the PGI, Chandigarh, has opined that there was no emergency situation, vide order dated 24.12.2008 (A/1). 3. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner took the stand that instead of taking treatment from Government Hospital, the applicant-respondent No. 1 took the treatment from a private hospital, which is not empanelled or recognised under the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS). The case of the applicant-respondent No. 1 was sent to the Head of the Cardiology Department, PGIMER, Chandigarh, vide letter dated 23.10.2008, for verifying the emergency admission in a private hospital. The Head of Cardiology Department, PGIMER, Chandigarh, opined that it was not an emergency situation. 4. After noticing various judgments of this Court rendered in the cases of Gurnam Singh Mann v. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, 2006 (1) RSJ 147; Roshni Devi v. State of Haryana, 2002 (3) RSJ 490; and Chander Bhan v. State of Haryana, 2004 (4) RSJ 66 and instructions dated 4.2.1993 on the point of Medical Attendance Rules, the Tribunal has reached the following conclusion: “8. From the pleadings, it is evident that when the applicant developed severe chest pain with shortness of breath on 30.6.2008, he was immediately rushed to Fortis Hospital, Mohali under emergency conditions and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting was conducted on 1st July, 2008. Fortis Hospital at Mohali is considered as a Super Speciality hospital in heart treatment, and it 2 CWP No. 15411 of 2010 was nearest to Chandigarh. Thus, in view of the fact that the term “emergency” is a flexible concept and even medical opinions may vary about a particular situation being an emergent one or not, the benefit of doubt should be given to the Govt. servant in such cases, specially where life-saving procedures like Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting are concerned. I also find support in this from the citations reproduced above. Therefore, the applicant deserves reimbursement of his medical bill which was wrongly denied to him. However, the reimbursement should be in accordance with the rates charged by PGI, Chandigarh for a similar medical procedure.” 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perusing the paper book with his able assistance we find no ground to interfere with the order dated 5.2.2010 (P-4) passed by the Tribunal, warranting admission of the instant petition. The Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the term “emergency” is a flexible concept and even medical opinions may vary about a particular situation being an emergent one or not, therefore, benefit of doubt should be given to the Government servant in such cases, especially where life-saving procedures like Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting are concerned. We find no ground to take a contrary view in the instant petition. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) August 30, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 3