1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6465/2005 (Amar Singh Chouhan Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) Date of order : 13.8.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. V.K. Mathur, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Vyas, Government Counsel. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for directions to the respondents to reimburse the medical bills which incurred for treatment of his daughter and prayed for quashing of order dated 23.9.2005 Annexure-3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working substantively in the Police Department and in his family he is having wife and two daughters and all are dependents of the petitioner. 2 The elder daughter of petitioner Miss Chanchal was 12 years of old in the year 2005 and she was suffering from heart disease known as CAROATA since childhood. The daughter of petitioner was treated by Dr. Jagdish Soni, Associate Professor of S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur. In the year 2001, it was advised by him to take treatment from S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. In pursuance of advise given by doctor, after getting her referred, the petitioner took her daughter to S.M.S. Hospital where she was operated by Dr. Vinay Nathani on 17.2.2001. After operation, the petitioner came back to Jodhpur but after two or three months again same disease aggravated, therefore, petitioner took her daughter for treatment again to Dr. Jagdish Soni. In the year 2005, after taking one week leave w.e.f. 5.5.2005 for attending marriage of his relative at Delhi, the petitioner left Jodhpur and in Delhi, suddenly, daughter of petitioner became serious, therefore, she was taken to the doctor available in the nearby area for treatment but after examination, doctor advised the petitioner to take her to Escort Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi for treatment. The petitioner in emergent condition to save her life immediately rushed to Escort Heart Institute & Research Centre, New Delhi where Dr. Atul Mathur after examining her daughter advised for 3 angioplasty immediately. Since, disease was very old and condition of daughter of petitioner became serious, therefore, to save the life of her daughter, the petitioner was left with no option but to get treatment at Escort Hospital, New Delhi. Consequently, daughter of petitioner was operated in Escort Hospital in which total expenditure of operation and treatment of Rs.1,38,379/- was incurred by the petitioner. The petitioner submitted the medical bills for reimbursement but claim of the petitioner was rejected vide Annexure-3 dated 23.9.2005 in which it is stated that as per Rule 6, a government employee or member of his family can take treatment outside State, if he is posted outside the State or has been sent for any duty or availing leave but none of the conditions are in existence, therefore, while observing the above facts, the claim of the petitioner was not finalized and he was asked to submit his explanation. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that it is admitted position of the case that petitioner was on leave, which is evident from Annexure-R/1 and during his leave he was at New Delhi in connection with marriage of his relative where the condition of petitioner's daughter, who was suffering with heart disease became serious, therefore, in emergent situation, she was admitted to Escort 4 Hospital, New Delhi where she was treated by doctor in which huge amount of Rs.1,38,379/- was incurred. Learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting attention of this Court towards the judgment rendered in case of Anil Kumar Surolia Vs. State of Raj. and State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Surendra Kumar Kalra reported in 2008 (3) RLW 1953 (Raj.) and submitted that as per verdict of this Hon'ble Court, the petitioner is entitled for reimbursement of medical bills in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules of 1970 even if the treatment was taken outside the State in emergent situation. Therefore, the respondents may be directed to reimburse the medical bills of the petitioner. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for reimbursement of the medical bills of the treatment of his daughter, who was said to be suffering from heart disease because her case was not referred by any of the Doctors for treatment at Escort Hospital, New Delhi, which is outside State. More so, the petitioner took casual leave of seven days and left Jodhpur without any reference by any competent doctor. Therefore, as per provisions of Rules of 1970, the petitioner is not entitled for reimbursement of medical bills of treatment of his daughter. 5 I have considered the rival submission made on behalf of both the parties. In my opinion, the facts narrated by the petitioner clearly speaks that there was emergency situation with regard to condition of his daughter, who was suffering from heart disease, therefore, to save her life, the petitioner took her in the Escort Hospital, New Delhi for treatment where as per advise of doctor in emergent situation, operation was performed in which the amount was incurred, therefore, the claim of the petitioner cannot be denied by the respondents but at the same time, the petitioner cannot claim the reimbursement of the medical bills incurred in the Escort Hospital, the State Government is under obligation only to reimburse the medical bills as per notified hospitals under the Rules of 1970 for the disease from which daughter of petitioner is suffering. In case of Anil Kumar Surolia Vs. State of Raj. (supra), Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has held that in emergent situation, employee can avail medical treatment outside Rajasthan. Para 6 and 8 of the aforesaid judgment is as follows : “6. In the factual background as detailed above, we are of the firm view that even if the required treatment was available in 6 SMS Hospital at Jaipur or other approved hospitals in the State of Rajasthan, the petitioner was indeed entitled to medical reimbursement if he had got the treatment elsewhere necessitated on account of circumstances beyond his control. Self preservance is the first instinct in every human being. Person having suffered heart attach is not expected to await treatment at a far off distance as time is the essence in saving valuable life in such matter. There is every risk of a person breathing his last if he has to await treatment of heart attack. In the circumstances, even if such medical treatment as obtained by a Government employee be available in the State itself, he shall be still entitled to medical reimbursement for the treatment obtained elsewhere if the same is necessitated on account of circumstances beyond his control. In emergent situation thus it is not incumbent for a patient to obtain medical treatment only in approved hospitals of the Government. We would have discussed the matter in further details as per provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendant) Rules but it is conceded during the course of arguments that if the petitioner was to obtain medical treatment at SMS Hospital at Jaipur or the other Government approved hospitals in the State of Rajasthan, he would have been paid the same amount for the treatment he ultimately got from Krishna Heart Institute. If that be a fact, and which as mentioned above, is conceded, we are of the view that the 7 stand taken by the State Government is obdurate and wholly uncalled for. We could imagine if perhaps the petitioner had spent far more and was claiming the same while getting treatment in a non- approved hospital. Government in any case had to pay the same amount spent by the petitioner at Krishna Heart Institute even if the petitioner was to get treatment in SMS Hospital or other approved hospital in the State of Rajasthan. This Court cannot but deprecate the attitude of the Government in rejecting justified claims in teeth of the recommendations made by this Court. Registrar General of this Court indeed supported the cause of the petitioner but the favourable recommendations made by this Court have been turned down on wholly untenable grounds.” “8. The preliminary objections raised by the State as have been noted above need to be straightaway rejected. Delay in this case has actually been caused by the State in refusing a justified claim despite repeated recommendations made by this Court. In so far as right of petitioner for reimbursement of mediclaim is concerned, it could not be disputed during the course of arguments that a Government employee is entitled to the same. Simply because the right of a Government employee for medical reimbursement may not be a fundamental right it cannot be said that writ petition would not be competent. Once such a right is recognised, denial thereof would certainly entitle a citizen 8 to invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” In case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Surendra Kumar Kalra reported in 2008 (3) RLW 1953 (Raj.), Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has held that in emergent situation a Government employee can take treatment at a Hospital where the same is available without reference of his case by the Government. Relevant para 14 of the above judgment is as follows: “14. This Court in the case of Anil Kumar Surolia has, thus, relied that in an emergent situation, the government cannot insist upon a government servant to get himself treated at government recognized institution. In our considered view a government servant having suffered a severe cardiac problem or heart attack cannot wait for being taken to a government hospital as for him every second is precious and delay of few minutes in the treatment may be fatal. We find ourselves in agreement with the view of the Division Bench that in the situation like this where a government servant is required to be treated in a emergency, the government cannot insist upon its employee to get himself treated at the government hospital. As has been laid down in the case of Anil Kumar Surolia, the government must reimburse the concerned employee at the rates that may be applicable in the recognized/approved government institutions/hospitals. We concur with this view. 9 In this view of the matter while following the judgments rendered in case of Anil Kumar Surolia (supra) and Vinod Kalra (supra), this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to reimburse the medical bills of the treatment of the petitioner's daughter, which is submitted by him at the rate of notified hospitals under the Rules of 1970 within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun