IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.425 of 2008 KULDEEP SAHU . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . For the Petitioner : Dr. Mayanand Jha, Adv. Mr. Munna Prasad. Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, S.C.21. ----------- 2/ 24/11/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner claims reimbursement of medical expenses incurred during treatment following an accident which, he states, occurred in course of discharge of official duties when on 21.4.2005 be was hit by a truck. The amount spent on treatment of the petitioner in the Patna Medical College and Hospital poses no difficulty or controversy. This Court is satisfied that since the medical receipts and vouchers relate to a Government hospital, the authorities themselves are competent enough to obtain all requisite information from the Patna Medical College and Hospital without the petitioner being made to shuttle around. This Court accordingly directs the respondent authorities to examine the bills of the petitioner with regard to his treatment in the Patna Medical College and Hospital, as submitted, call for any clarifications that they may need from the Patna 2 Medical College and Hospital so that the legitimate dues of the petitioner to that extent are paid within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The problem arises with regard to the treatment availed by the petitioner thereafter from sources outside the Patna Medical College and Hospital. Learned counsel for the State submits that after treatment in the Patna Medical College and Hospital the discharge slip itself states that he was referred to the O.P.D. of the orthopedics, Eye and E.N.T. for valuable opinion and treatment. In stead of doing so, the petitioner is alleged to have gone to private doctors. Rule-10 of the Medical Attendance Rules does not countenance treatment outside a Government hospital unless it be with the prior approval of the Department except if it be a case of emergency. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the year-2006 the Government itself has made amendments in exercise of powers under Article- 309 of the Constitution of India for treatment from sources outside Government hospitals including hospitals approved by the C.G.H.S. The right to receive quality medical 3 treatment is a fundamental right to life under Article-21 of the Constitution of India. The State has also a bounden duty to make quality medical treatment available to its citizens. The area of conflict arises when the citizen perceives a better quality of treatment available which the State may not be in a position to deliver. Even at this stage the question of reasonableness in conduct of the citizen will arise. Surely, a citizen on the pretext of quality medical treatment which he perceives as not available to him in a Government hospital cannot impose financial burden on the State authorities of a manner unbearable for them keeping in mind that they have to meet medical expenses of other Government employees as well. To cite example, if a citizen was to proceed abroad for medical treatment for ailments with regard to which, even if he perceives that a Government hospital does not have adequate facilities, was available with a private doctor of repute in the town of Patna itself, the question of reimbursement shall not arise. But, if the petitioner has visited doctors of repute in the discipline discussed above in the town of Patna, while the insistence of the respondents on the Rules may be right in its place, the question arises of their reasonableness, rationale and logic of the respondents to deny treatment 4 to the petitioner of a quality that he perceives beneficial to his health, dissatisfied with the quality of treatment given by the Government hospital. To that extent, this Court grants liberty to the petitioner to invite the attention of the respondents that each of the private doctors at Patna visited by him was expert of his own field well renowned in the town of Patna. The petitioner shall also be at liberty to explain that it was only when he was not satisfied with the quality of attention and treatment being given to him in the Patna Medical College and Hospital that he in his best interest and his right to life under Article-21 of the Constitution of India visited these medical personnel. This Court in terms of the directions contained in 2001(3) P.L.J.R. 623 (Pawanh Prakash & Ors. Versus State of Bihar & Ors.) then directs the respondents to then examine the matter by appropriate invocation of Rule-26 of the Medical Attendance Rules, for relaxation, to reimburse the private expenses at approved government rates when the expenses incurred beyond the same may be sympathetically considered as directed in 2003(3) P.L.J.R. 729 (Ram Sagar Ram Versus State of Bihar & Ors.). All this shall necessarily be qualified by the maximum financial reimbursement permissible to the 5 petitioner under the Rules, if any. Let compliance be done within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)