IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6296 of 2000 KRISHNA BALABH SHARMA son of Shri Kedar Nath Singh resident of village- Muriya Bigha, P.O.- Jaitipur Jurua, police station- Ghosi, and district - Jehanabad, at present posted as a clerk in Civil Surgeon Office, Jehanabad. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services,New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Health Commissioner, Health Services,New Secretariat Bihar, Patna. 4. Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer,Jehanabad 5. Director Health Services, Bihar, Patna. ----------- 5 24-11-2008 Learned counsel for the State very fairly submits that in spite of opportunity granted by this court on 23-9-2008 no instructions have been received and counter-affidavit could not be filed. In accordance with the earlier order the matter needs to be heard for disposal. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and perused the order dated 9-2-1999 ( Annexure-11) whereby petitioner’s earlier writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No.9565 of 1997 was disposed of so that he could file a representation before the Director- In -chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna for disposal. Also perused the impugned order of the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna contained in annexure-12 dated 18-9-1999. On behalf of petitioner it has been submitted that the Director-in-Chief has considered so many un-necessary issues and has erred in rejecting petitioner’s claim for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by the petitioner for treatment of his wife out-side the State at a private clinic in Bombay only on the ground that - 2 - petitioner had obtained a reference by Medical Board for treatment at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. If petitioner was not inclined to get his wife treated as per reference made by experts constituting Medical Board then it was open for him to seek a review and pray for reference to the concerned private clinic at Bombay but that was not done, therefore his journey for treatment and expenses for treatment at Bombay which is the subject matter of claim for reimbursement is not in accordance with the authorization for treatment out-side the State based upon the recommendation of the Medical Board. In matters having financial implications the requirement of reference and prior permission become relevant and only in exceptional circumstances post-facto sanction is required if there was a case of extreme emergency. The treatment of petitioner’s wife which was allegedly for infertility at a late age beyond 40 years cannot be said to be a case of extreme empergency where petitioner could not have approached the authority for reference to a private hospital at Bombay. In case the experts had refused to refer his case to the clinic at Bombay he could have justifiably approached this court but that is not the case. Considering all the facts and circumstances and realizing that petitioner had under taken the journey and treatment of his wife at Bombay as per his own wishes and not as per reference made by the Medical Board , this court is unable to help the petitioner in this matter. It does not find any good reason to direct the Director-in- - 3 - Naresh Chief, Health Services to take a favourable decision in the matter. The writ petition is dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh,J)