IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11310 of 2007 Date of Decision: 9.5.2008 Rajwati Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.PURI Present: Shri Anand Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner Shri Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G. Haryana for the respondents Jasbir Singh, J. Vide order dated 17.5.2007 (P/4), claim of the petitioner, for reimbursement of bills, with regard to amount spent on the medical treatment of her husband, was rejected. It is case of the petitioner that her husband Rajbir Singh was a retired employee of the respondents. As per rules, he was eligible for reimbursement of expenses incurred by him on his medical treatment received in a hospital/ institute recognized by the State of Haryana. On 19.12.2006, petitioner’s husband had gone to New Delhi to meet his relatives. He was to stay there for 3-4 days. On 22.12.2006, husband of the petitioner felt severe pain in his chest and he was rushed to the nearby hospital known as Sri Bala Ji Action Medical Institute, Pashchim Vihar, New Delhi. Husband of the petitioner was got admitted and was discharged from the hospital on 23.12.2006. During his stay in the hospital, angioplasty was done upon her husband, who subsequently died on 19.3.2007. Petitioner submitted medical bills for reimbursement, which were returned to her on 17.5.2007 (P/4), by observing thus:- Civil Writ Petition No.11310 of 2007 “Late Sh.Rajbir Singh H.A. has received treatment from Shri Balaji Action Medical Institute Delhi which is not recognised by the Govt. According to the government instructions, reimbursement of this bill cannot be considered. Hence the bill is returned by enclosing with this letter.” In response to notice issued by us, reply has been filed. Entitlement of the petitioner’s husband, to get reimbursement towards medical expenses, has not been controverted. It has only been stated that as he has got treatment from an unrecognized hospital, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to get reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by her husband. Counsel for the parties heard. We, after looking into documents on record and taking note of established law on the point in dispute, feel that this writ petition deserves to be allowed. It is not in dispute that husband of the petitioner was a retired government employee and he was entitled to get re-imbursement of medical expenses incurred upon his treatment. Only objection raised by the respondents, to deny him the above said relief, is that he had got treatment from an unrecognized hospital. We feel that objection taken is too technical and is liable to be rejected. In number of judgments, this Court has held that in a case of emergency, if a government employee gets treatment from any unrecognized hospital, the respondent – State is bound to re-imburse the medical expenses at the rates, applicable in All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi or Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research at Chandigarh. Despite clear proposition of law, claim raised by the petitioner, has wrongly been declined by the authorities. 2 Civil Writ Petition No.11310 of 2007 Similar controversy came up for consideration before this Court in CWP No.11047 of 2000 (Amina Kundu v. State of Haryana and others), decided on 15.2.2001, wherein it was observed thus:- “It is the common case of the parties that the husband of the petitioner was actually a Government employee and as per the rules, the deceased was entitled to the medical re- imbursement. To get a treatment of particular disease, is always a matter of trust between the patient and the doctor. The Government has its limitations. It can prescribe that the treatment must be taken from the recognised institutions but emergency can always arise when the patient was not in a position to go to a particular institution which has been recognised by the Government. In such situation, if the person has got the treatment from a different institution other than the recognised one, he can only take the benefit of the medical re- imbursement to the extent of the rates which are applicable to the Government institutes. To supplement my view I draw support from 1996(4) SLR 177, Waryam Singh vs. State of Punjab and others. 6.In this view of the matter, I allow this writ petition and give the directions to the respondent – authorities to re-imburse the medical claim of the husband of the petitioner, as per the rates as applicable in All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi or P.G.I., Chandigarh, which ever is less, within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to 3 Civil Writ Petition No.11310 of 2007 get interest at the rate of 12% from the respondent. No order as to costs.” To the same effect is the ratio of the judgment in CWP No.11530 of 2000 (P.C.Chaudhary v. State of Haryana and others), decided on 9.11.2000. Both the above said judgments, are based upon ratio of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Som Nath Kapoor v. State of Haryana, 1996(4) R.S.J., 646. It is coming out from the records that husband of the petitioner got treatment in the hospital, in dispute, in an emergency. He was in Delhi, he felt acute pain in his chest and was rushed to the nearby hospital, where he was diagnosed as suffering from a serious heart disease. To save him, angioplasty was done. We are of the opinion that husband of the petitioner would have died if he was not provided medical treatment by the hospital, in dispute, as it was a case an emergent nature. In view of facts of this case and ratio of the judgments, referred to above, we allow this writ petition and direct the petitioner to re-submit medical bills to the respondents for reimbursement. Respondents are directed to clear the medical bills within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to get interest @ 7% per annum (simple) on the amount due till its realisation. (Jasbir Singh) Judge May 09, 2008 (K.C. Puri) gk Judge 4