C.W.P No.16165 of 2007(O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.16165 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision : March 19, 2009 Khan Chand ...... Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ...... Respondent *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Surender Deswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J. The petitioner who was a retired pensioner got massive heart attack on 23.8.2004 and was thereafter admitted to Heart (Escort) Command and Research Centre, Sector C, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi where his disease was diagnosed with deformity of coronary artery and discharged from the above said hospital on 25.8.2004, but while reaching at home in Gurgaon, the condition of the petitioner started deteriorating and was immediately got admitted to the Aryan Hospital, Old Railway Road, Gurgaon and remained C.W.P No.16165 of 2007(O&M) ::2:: admitted there from 26.8.2004 to 29.8.2004. His medical reimbursement case was rejected on the ground that his treatment at the aforesaid hospitals was not certified to be an emergency. It may be noticed that the latest policy of the Haryana Government dated 6.5.2005 on the subject broadly envisages that if treatment is taken from a government hospital it shall be fully re-imbursed and if treatment is taken from an approved hospital then the employee would be liable to be reimbursed at the PGI/AIIMS rates plus 75% of the balance, if any. The third category as per this policy is of un-approved hospital and any treatment taken therefrom is reimbursable at PGI rates with, however, the condition that the same should be certified to be an emergency treatment. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mahipal Singh vs State of Haryana and others, 2008(2) SCT 592, wherein it was held as follows :- “8. xx xx xx 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 C.W.P No.16165 of 2007(O&M) ::3:: 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 while dealing with human problems. There can be no mathematical precision while dealing with human beings........” Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on a Single Bench judgment of this Court in Roshani Devi vs State of Haryana and others, 2002(4) RSJ 364, wherein it was held 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 specialised treatment. Some specialties are peculiar to a particular hospital. If a patient opts to go to Apollo Hospital 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 recognised. Health is equally important not only to the public servant C.W.P No.16165 of 2007(O&M) ::4:: but also to his family members.” In my opinion, the present case is covered by the binding precedents reproduced above. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to release medical re- imbursement to the petitioner at PGI/AIIMS rates within two months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. ( AJAY TEWARI ) March 19, 2009 JUDGE ashish