CWP no. 6747 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP no. 6747 of 2010(O&M) Decided on : 19-05-2011 Pushpa Rawat ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana MAHESH GROVER, J The petitioner is wife of Late Sh. Gobind Singh Rawat who has since expired on 20.4.;2009 after remaining under treatment for 18 days. Initially the petitioner's husband took treatment from a private hospital for the ailment called Thrombosis and spent Rs.26,000/-. Subsequently, it transpired that the petitioner was afflicted by Prostrate cancer for which he took treatment at Delwyns Arora Nursing Home and Fortis Hospital, Mohali. As observed earlier he breathed his last within 18 days of the commencement of the treatment. The petitioner raised a demand upon the respondents to reimburse the expenses that her husband incurred on account of the treatment. The respondents have partially accepted the claim by releasing the reimbursement at the rate of 75% of the PGI rates for the treatment undertaken at Fortis Hospital but the remaining reimbursement has been declined on the ground that the petitioner did not furnish any material that CWP no. 6747 of 2010(O&M) 2 the treatment was required under an emergent situation. This is the cause of the grievance of the petitioner. Mr. Rathee states that they have not denied the claim of the petitioner but have kept the same in abeyance because the petitioner did not furnish the requisite certificate indicating that the situation was emergent enough so as to warrant the deceased to take the treatment from the hospital which was not recognized and approved by the State of Haryana. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to succeed. The very fact that the husband of the petitioner died within 18 days of the commencement of the treatment would necessarily reflect the condition he was in and that by no stretch of imagination it could be said that it was not emergent enough so as to warrant a treatment from any of the hospital that he chose. Besides, it has been a settled law that a person who undergoes treatment has every right to chose a doctor and hospital which inspires confidence in him and it not necessary that he should stick to the hospital which is approved by the respondents- State. Similar view has been held in various judgments rendered by this Court titled as Gurnam Singh Mann versus Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana and others reported as 2006(1) PLR 84, Vasu Dev Bhanot versus Union of India and others 2008(2) SCT 404, Mahipal Singh versus State of Haryana and others reported as 2008 (2) SCT 592 and Vijender Singh versus State of Haryana and another rendered in CWP no. 19733 of 2009 decided on 17.2.2011. For the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the medical expenses to the petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of CWP no. 6747 of 2010(O&M) 3 receipt of the copy of the order. May 19 , 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge