CWP No.19099 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.19099 of 2010 Date of decision : 01-12-2011 Dharam Singh .... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present: Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. MAHESH GROVER, J. (Oral) The petitioner prays that the expenses that he has incurred on account of a medical problem which resulted in the amputation of his left leg amounting to Rs.1,46,428/- be reimbursed. The respondents have denied the claim on the ground that petitioner was not treated in a condition of emergency and that he had got the treatment done from unapproved hospital. Annexures P-4 & P-5 are reflective of the reason adopted by the respondents to deny the claim of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexures P-1 & P-2 which is the certificate issued by Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana describing his ailment as Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with Diabetic Food (Gangrene) and for this he was operated upon with amputation above the knee. Annexure P-1 (Colly) further reveals that the CWP No.19099 of 2010 -2- petitioner was admitted as an emergency case in the hospital on 21.11.2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of the condition the petitioner was placed in, the denial of the medical reimbursement of serious condition which resulted in amputation of his leg is totally arbitrary and have just prayed that impugned action of the respondents be declared arbitrary and unsustainable. He has placed reliance on two Division Bench judgments of this Court reported as Gurnam Singh Mann v. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana and others, 2006(1) RSJ 146 and Chander Bhan v. State of Haryana and others, 2004(4) RSJ 66. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the condition in which the petitioner was placed resulting in amputation of his leg on account of setting in Gangrene cannot be considered to be a situation which does not warrant immediate intervention as it is well known that Gangrene is life threatening. In this situation, when the petitioner avails himself of the remedy from hospital not approved by the Government cannot be made the basis for denial of the reimbursement for the treatment if otherwise found correct on verification. The situation of emergency can never be put in strait-jackets to draft a list which can be adhered to while admitting or denying the claim of the petitioner. Likewise, a mere presumption as drawn by the respondents that merely because the petitioner had taken 15 days to react to his condition cannot ipso facto be accepted to deny that the situation was not of an emergency. Civil Surgeon who opines on this aspect of the matter is expected to take into consideration the medical reports and then determine as to whether condition of emergency CWP No.19099 of 2010 -3- existed or not and as such opinion should be self-speaking and based on cogent explanation dealing specifically with the medical condition of the concerned person. The presumptive inference which is reflected in Annexure R-4 for the opinion of this Court is too vague to be viewed otherwise. Consequently, for the aforesaid reasons, the petition is accepted. The petitioner is held entitled to the medical reimbursement on account of the treatment that he has taken resulting in amputation of his leg. The needful be done as expeditiously as possible. (MAHESH GROVER) 01-12-2011 JUDGE manju