CWP No.19733 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.19733 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on : 17-02-2011 Vijender Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Anand Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana MAHESH GROVER, J This is a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus and Certiorari directing the respondents to reimburse the amount which he had spent on his medical treatment. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had to be admitted in an emergent situation because his appendicitis burst and thus he took treatment from Escorts Hospital, Faridabad. There is also another hospital by the name of Metro Hospital which is recognized by the respondents-State and this has formed the basis of the objection of the respondents now to clear the bills of the petitioner. The reimbursement has been denied on the grounds which have been mentioned in Annexure P-5 which has been impugned by the petitioner and which are as follows:- i) the reimbursement claim peterins to 2/08 whereas the bill submitted during 4/09 which is more than one year and time bound. CWP No.19733 of 2009 (O&M) 2 ii)The Escorts Hospital Faridabad not on the panel of approved hospital by the Haryana Govt. iii)As per instructions before taking treatment from private hospital the case for treatment is required to be referred by Civil Hospital. Before this Court also the objections of the respondents are also on the similar lines. Apart from stating the aforesaid, it has been contended that the case of the petitioner for reimbursement should have been recommended by the Chief Medical Officer certifying the emergency. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the objections raised by the respondents are frivolous. Annexure P-10 is the certificate issued by the Escorts Hospital indicating that the petitioner was having perforated appendicitis with peritonitis and Annexures P-2 and 3 are the bills which correspond to the treatment period. Having regard to the serious condition that the petitioner developed on account of perforated appendicitis with peritonitis, it cannot be expected that a person in such a situation would be in a position to go to the hospital which is certified by the respondents as the authorized hospital from where treatment can be taken. In any eventuality, the petitioner has a right to choose the hospital and the doctor from where he requires the treatment, moreso, when the situation is so emergent so as to warrant immediate treatment and as also life threatening. Having regard to the aforesaid, the objection of the respondents is held to be unsustainable. In case titled as Roshni Devi vs. State of Haryana reported as 2002 (4) RSJ 364 it has been held as under:- CWP No.19733 of 2009 (O&M) 3 “5...... We all know that the treatment is a matter of confidence between the patient and the doctor. Apollo Hospital is also a hospital of repute in the Northern India. It provides specialized treatment. Some specialties are peculiar to a particular hospital. If a patient opts to go to Apollo Hospital in order to get the genuine treatment, expenditure on getting such treatment should not be scuttled down on the technical ground that he had got the treatment from a hospital which is not recognized. Health is equally important not only to the public servant but also to his family members.” Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to reimburse the amount to the petitioner forthwith. February 17 , 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge