CWP No.9063 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.9063 of 2011 Date of decision : 02-12-2011 Om Parkash .... Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present: Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana. MAHESH GROVER, J. (Oral) The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been fully reimbursed on account of the expenses that he has incurred for his medical treatment on the ground that the amount in question was spent by the petitioner while being an outdoor patient. The petitioner who is concedely an employee of the respondents was, compulsorily retired from service on 7.06.2010 on account of his ailment. He was operated upon for a malignant tumour in the kidney which was removed. Subsequently, he had to visit the hospital as an outdoor patient and was prescribed medicines on account of which he had to incur an expenditure of Rs.1,43,783/-. He prays for his claim which was denied by virtue of Annexure P-11 by stating that the petitioner had changed his option for CWP No.9063 of 2011 -2- open medical reimbursement w.e.f. 6.01.2010 and that outdoor medical bills can be reimbursed only after change of option and after getting a certificate of chronic diseases from the Civil Surgeon concerned. In view of the fact that option was changed by the petitioner on 6.1.2010 any medical expenses incurred by him prior to 6.01.2010 cannot be reimbursed to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner while making his submissions has placed reliance on the judgments rendered by this Court in case of C.B. Gupta v. State of Haryana and others, 2003(2) RSJ 90, Renu Saigal v. State of Haryana, 1998(4) RSJ 557, Krishna Kumar (deceased) through Lrs v. State of Haryana and others, 1999(4) RSJ 386, Santosh Phogat v. The State of Haryana and another, 1999(4) RSJ 389 and Sat Parkash Arora v. State of Haryana and another, 2001(1) RSJ 185. After considering the assertion and counter assertion made by the petitioner and the respondents, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be denied the medical reimbursement on account of the expenses incurred by him as an outdoor patient. The treatment as an outdoor patient which the petitioner took was pursuant to a serious affliction and, therefore, has to be treated as an ongoing process of treatment. Respondents cannot create an artificial distinction in these two situations as it is common knowledge that any serious surgery would involve a sufficient follow up action which a person may be required to undergo to complete the process of treatment. In view of the aforesaid and in view of the observations made by this Court in the judgments referred to above, I am of the opinion that petition deserves to be accepted and the impugned order (Annexure P-11) CWP No.9063 of 2011 -3- deserves to be quashed. Ordered accordingly. The respondents shall reimburse the amount in question to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from today. (MAHESH GROVER) 02-12-2011 JUDGE manju