LPA No. 1148 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1148 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 7.9.2010 Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam and another ....Appellants. Versus Hawa Singh Hooda ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. B.S. Rana, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate for the respondent. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge directing the appellants to release medical reimbursement to the respondent-writ petitioner at PGI/AIIMS rates for treatment taken for sudden heart ailment while at Singapore. 2. Case of the respondent-writ petitioner was that he retired from the service of Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam as Chief Engineer. In the month of November, 2005, he suffered heart attack when he was at Singapore and took treatment there and sought reimbursement. As per declared policy of the State of Haryana dated 6.5.2005, Annexure R-5, the amount to the extent of PGI/AIIMS rates was liable to be reimbursed. Reliance was also placed on Division Bench judgment of LPA No. 1148 of 2009 (O&M) -2- this Court in Mahipal Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2008 (2) SCT 592 holding that in emergency situation, treatment could be taken from unapproved hospital to save the life. 3. Claim was contested on behalf of the appellants with the plea that treatment taken abroad was not reimbursable. 4. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition relying upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mahipal Singh's case (supra) and Single Bench judgment in Roshani Devi v. State of Haryana and others, 2002 (4) RSJ 364. 5. On earlier hearing, the respondent was required to furnish information whether his visit to Singapore was pre-planned for treatment or he was treated at Singapore as an emergency patient while on visit for some other purpose. In response thereto affidavit has been filed to the following effect:- “2. That my visit to Singapore General Hospital was not a pre-planned one. 3. That I had gone to Singapore on 26.11.2005 to meet family of my son who was employed there. 4. That on 29.11.2005 I suddenly had a severe heart problem at around 2.00 AM and was rushed to the Accident & Emergency (A&E) Department of Singapore General Hospital. 5. That after preliminary examination I was shifted to National Heart Centre, Singapore for further treatment. LPA No. 1148 of 2009 (O&M) -3- 6. That I being a retired employee, am not required to seek permission of Govt. for going abroad.” 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the respondent failed to satisfy the authorities that his treatment was in emergency and, therefore, plea now taken that he developed ailment suddenly was not reliable. 8. We are unable to accept the submission. Apart from the affidavit now filed to the effect that he had visited Singapore to meet the family of his son and he suffered sudden problem there, even in the writ petition this fact is mentioned in paras 2 and 3. Even in representation, Annexure P-1, the same fact is mentioned. There is no material to rebut the stand of the respondent that the treatment was taken in emergency. In this view of the matter, earlier judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Mahipal Singh relied upon by learned Single Judge is not shown to be in any manner distinguishable. Order of learned Single Judge directing release of medical reimbursement at PGI/AIIMS rate does not, thus, call for any interference. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 7, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE