SBCWP No.5296/07. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.5296/2007. Shubh Karan Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order:- February 27, 2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Bhupendra Pareek for the petitioner. Shri Zakir Hussain, Additional Government Counsel. ****** BY THE COURT: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that respondents be directed to reimburse the total amount incurred by him on his treatment at the hospital at Delhi and declare the petitioner entitled to receive the full expenditure incurred by him in his heart operation at Max Heart & Vascular Institute, New Delhi and direct the respondents to reimburse the balance sum of Rs.2,21,600/- with interest. SBCWP No.5296/07. 2 2) Petitioner is a retired government servant. After retirement, he became diabetic patient and was under regular treatment at SMS Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur since March 2002. During the course of treatment, his TMT was done and same was found to be positive. In the month of January 2006, petitioner had gone to Jhansi for NQM. While he was coming back from Jhansi, he stayed at the residence of his daughter at Delhi. During his stay at Delhi, he suffered from heart attack on 20/1/2006 and got hospitalised at Max Heart & Vascular Institute, Delhi in emergent situation. On 20/1/2006 itself, he underwent Coronary Angiography which revealed double vessel disease. Petitioner was operated upon for angioplasty and two stants were implanted in his heart. In all, a sum of Rs.3,21,000/- was incurred in his treatment at Delhi. After retirement, petitioner had to take loan from his relatives for the purpose of payment of the treatment bills at Max Heart and Vascular Institute, Delhi. Petitioner submitted his reimbursement claim to the office of respondent No.1 on 4/2/2006. Respondent No.1 vide his letter dated 27/2/2006 informed the petitioner that since the treatment was taken by him in an unrecognised hospital, no financial assistance is admissible under the provisionos of the Rajasthan SBCWP No.5296/07. 3 State Pensioners Medical Concession Scheme. Petitioner however was asked to send photocopy of his medical diary showing its renewal for the year 2005-06 and also the essentiality certificate so that his case may be put up before the Sub Committee for consideration. Petitioner was informed vide order dated 16/12/2006 that the Board of Trustees in its meeting held on 19/10/2006 held that petitioner is entitled to the financial assistant only upto Rs.99,400/- and Treasury Officer, Jaipur was directed to obtain an undertaking from the petitioner that he has received full and final settlement of his claim. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the treatment of this nature, where petitioner suffered sudden heart attack while at Delhi, he should not be required to await approval of the government authorities and thereafter take treatment. V.D. Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : RLR 2003(3) 629 as well as Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Surendra Kumar Kalra : 2008(2) WLC (Raj.) 430 and submitted that learned Single Judge in V.D. Saxena supra allowed the similar claim of the petitioner whereas the Division Bench in Surendra Kumar Kalra supra dismissed the special SBCWP No.5296/07. 4 appeal filed by the State upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge allowing writ petition of the writ petitioner Surendra Kumar Kalra. In V.D. Saxena supra, the co-ordinate Bench of this observed in para 6 of the judgment, as under:- “A Division Bench of this court in the case of Shanker Lal Vs. State of Raj., (2000) 3 RLR 596 = 2000(3) WLC 585, has also observed that denial of reimbursement of expenses incurred on medical attendance and treatment bonafide and genuinely by the public servant for availing treatment for himself or any member of his family at recognised hospital/institution in the circumstances like the present case on such technical grounds shall be clearly arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust”. 4) Shri Zakir Hussain, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that already an amount of Rs.99,400/- has been paid to the petitioner as per the State Pensioners Medical Concession Scheme. It was submitted that petitioner has given undertaking that he had received this amount in full and final settlement of claims, he therefore is estopped from questioning the correctness of the same. 5) In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed. In the light of the judgment of the co- ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in V.D. Saxena supra, the petitioner is held entitled to receive SBCWP No.5296/07. 5 amount of reimbursement of the medical bills / expenses as per norms of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi for undergoing Coronary Artery Bye-pass Grafting (C.A.B.G.). Compliance of the judgment shall be made within a period of two months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) J. anil