IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.435 of 2008 SADANAND SINGH . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2 14.5.2010 Reg:- I.A. No. 3943 of 2010 The writ application as well as Interlocutory application has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondent to reimburse an amount of Rs. 1, 54,994/- to the petitioner, which is spent on his treatment at Heart and Lungs Institute, New Delhi. Petitioner had to undergo “Off coronary artery By pass surgery” as it was essential for saving his life. Petitioner’s case is that he was undergoing treatment under Dr. R.K.Agrawal, who has advised him to undergo Cardiac angiography treatment as well as for heart surgery outside the State. The condition of the petitioner suddenly deteriorated and in unconscious state, he was brought to New Delhi for treatment in All India Institute of Medical Sciences. Considering the huge crowed and long queue of patients, at AIIMS, New Delhi family members of the petitioner got him admitted in Heart and Lungs Institute, New Delhi. There he was 2 operated and post operation treatment surgery was done. surgery was done on 7.7.2004 and a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- towards the charge of admission and the operation and other expenses were deposited. The total expenses which were incurred comes to Rs. 1,54,994/-. Petitioner thereafter submitted his bill of the medical expenses before the District Superintendent of Education, Sharsha, who referred to the Director-in- Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna for approval. By the impugned order dated 31.10.2005 the application of the petitioner and the bills submitted for reimbursement has been rejected, on the ground that without seeking previous permission, petitioner proceeded for his treatment and undergone treatment not in a panel proper Hospital but in the Hospital which has not been approved by the State Government. Counsel for the petitioner submits that his prayer for reimbursement has been rejected by the respondents merely on technical ground. There is nothing to show that petitioner has not undergone the treatment and claiming reimbursement on the basis of 3 fake medical bills. It is submitted that ground for rejection shows complete non-consideration of the situation of emergency, in which the petitioner was taken for treatment. In that circumstance, the most natural act on the part of petitioner’s family members were to take immediate steps to save his life and proceed for treatment, even without any permission from the competent authority, required in case of taking a Government employee for his treatment outside the State. It has also been submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that his case is squarely covered by the case of Madan Mohan Mishra, in whose case it has been held that the respondents are under a legal obligation to consider the claim of the ailing government employee considering the background and the manner in which decision for treatment outside state was taken, without prior approval of competent authority. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 stating that since the petitioner for his heart ailment under went Cardiac surgery at Delhi 4 Heart and Lung Institute at New Delh, a private Hospital, without seeking permission from the concerned authority, as such bills for reimbursement has been rejected. The reason for rejection is that he did not follow the procedure for treatment outside the State. Considering that in a similar circumstance, in the matters relating to reimbursement of medical bills, this Court has already decided to relax the rules, considering the circumstance in such cases where decision have been taken by the employees in emergent situation, I find that the facts of the petitioner’s case is sufficient to show that there was no occasion for prior approval and permission for undergoing treatment at a Private Hospital. The background in which the petitioner was taken to New Delhi, cannot be considered as a case of unauthorized treatment, outside State sufficient for rejecting claim for reimbursement of medical bills. It is a fit case in which the respondents should have exercised their discretionary power and allowed reimbursement of medical bills to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Respondent no.3 the 5 Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna and the District Superintendent of Education, Sharsha respondent no.4 are directed to allow the reimbursement of medical bills submitted by the petitioner and reimbursed an amount of Rs.1,54,994/-, which has been spent on petitioner’s treatment. The payment must be made, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of production/communication of this order. The writ application stands allowed. (Mridula Mishra,J.) A.Kumar