C.W.P.No.658 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.658 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision : 13.12.2011 Tej Ram Yadav ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present : Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner makes a prayer that the medical expenses that he has incurred on his treatment for removing a cyst in liver be reimbursed to him. The petitioner incurred a sum of Rs.47,536/- and the respondents have denied the claim on the ground that the petitioner did not avail of the medical treatment in an emergency condition and since he took the treatment from a private hospital, which was not in the approved list of the State of Haryana, no reimbursement can be granted to him. Para 3(a) of the instructions appended with the petition as Annexure P-2 is extracted hereunder:- “3. Approved Hospital a. The reimbursement on the expenditure incurred for treatment in ay of the non govt. hospital out of the 20 hospitals approved vide Govt. letter No. 2/296/86-1HBIII C.W.P.No.658 of 2011(O&M) 2 dated 19th November, 1986 with the concurrence of Finance Department vide their U.O No. 56/80/86-6FP-II/ 4309/4588 dated 22nd October, 1986 and also for the expenditure incurred for treatment in any of the non govt. hospital out of the 7 hospitals approved vide govt. letter No. 2/206/202-1HBIII dated 8.1.2003 shall be made at the rate equal to PGI Chandigarh rates. A list of these 27 hospitals is annexed as Annexure 'A'for ready reference. It is clarified that for expenditure on treatment in any of the govt. hospitals out of these 27 hospitals reimbursement shall be governed by the provision in para 2(ii) and 2(iii) above.” A perusal of the above reveals that in case the treatment is taken from the private hospital which is on the approved list, a person is entitled to the reimbursement at the rates equal to PGI, Chandigarh rates. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the reason for denial of the benefit of medical reimbursement to the petitioner is unsustainable. It would be too technical plea to stand in the way of such a reimbursement and it is not expected of a person to first go fishing for the list of the approved hospitals before taking a treatment. In case titled as Roshani Devi Vs. State of Haryana and others2002(4) RSJ 364, it was observed as follows:- “5. . . . . We all know that the treatment is a matter of confidence between the patient and the doctor. Apollo Hospital is also a hospital of repute in the Northern India. It provides specialized treatment. Some specialties are peculiar to a particular hospital. If a patient opts to go to Apollo Hospital C.W.P.No.658 of 2011(O&M) 3 in order to get the genuine treatment, expenditure on getting such treatment should not be scuttled down on the technical ground that he had got the treatment from a hospital which is not recognized. Health is equally important not only to the public servant but also to his family members.” Likewise, a Division Bench of this Court in case titled as Mahipal Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others reported as 2008(2) SCT 592 has observed as follows:- “In a case where the life of a human being is at stake, it is too technical to require such a person to hunt for a list of the approved hospitals and then decide which hospital to go in emergency situation. Sometimes, such hospitals may not be able to accommodate the patient and at that time the attendant is not expected to first look into the list of approved/recognized hospitals for medical reimbursement and then proceed for treatment. Such procedures should not be expected to be followed in an emergency by the attendant of the patient. If such regulations are applied so strictly, it would result in a disastrous situation and the patient may die. The act committed in an emergency should not be weighed in terms of money, especially when human life is at stake. The provision of free medical treatment or reimbursement in lieu thereof being a beneficial act of the welfare State for its employees, the rules/instructions have to be construed liberally in favour of the employees, for granting them the relief. The authorities are not supposed to adopt a wooden attitude and stick to technicalities C.W.P.No.658 of 2011(O&M) 4 while dealing with human problems. There can be no mathematical precision while dealing with human beings.” On the parity of the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed Ordered accordingly. The petitioner is held entitled to the medical reimbursement at the rates prescribed by the PGI, Chandigarh for the treatment he had taken for removal of cyst in his liver. Let needful be done as expeditiously as possible. December 13, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge