-1- Civil Writ Petition No.3586 of 2007. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: April 04, 2008. Raghuvir Prasad Mittal ... Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers 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 ? Present: Mr.D.V. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gourav Mohunta, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. The petitioner retired as a Commercial Assistant from the office of Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited, Sirsa (hereinafter referred to as `the Nigam') on May 31, 2007. Wife of the petitioner Smt. Nirmala Devi, who was suffering from -2- Civil Writ Petition No.3586 of 2007. `Chondrosarcoma @ Scapula (Cancer), took treatment from Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the P.G.I), Bombay Hospital, Mumbai/ Bombay Hospital & Research Centre, Mumbai. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner was not in a position to consult the Civil Surgeon, Sirsa and was forced to get the medical treatment from P.G.I, Bombay Hospital, Mumbai/ Bombay Hospital & Research Centre, Mumbai. Petitioner submitted the medical reimbursement claims to the Nigam, which were not reimbursed. He made various representations for reimbursement of medical claims, but to no effect. Claim in the present writ petition is for quashing the orders dated November 30, 2005, January 24, 2006 and March 22, 2006 (Annexures, P-6, P-9 and P-9/A, respectively) whereby medical reimbursement on account of the treatment of the wife of the petitioner from P.G.I, Bombay Hospital, Mumbai/ Bombay Hospital & Research Centre, Mumbai has been declined and for issuing a direction to the Nigam to reimburse the amount of Rs.2,58,573/- incurred by him in this connection. On notice, the Nigam contested the writ petition on the ground that the claim of the petitioner demanding the reimbursement of the amount of Rs.2,58,573/- spent by him on his wife's treatment is wholly misconceived inasmuch as he is getting Fixed Medical Allowance as per the policy of the Nigam and, therefore, is not entitled to claim reimbursement of the -3- Civil Writ Petition No.3586 of 2007. amount spent on treatment as an Out Door Patient (O.P.D) from P.G.I. So far as treatment taken from Bombay Hospital, Mumbai/Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre, Mumbai is concerned, it has been pleaded that such treatment for the aforesaid disease is available in the Government Hospital/Private Hospitals approved by the Nigam. Further that the amount claimed by the petitioner for his wife's treatment is highly exaggerated. It is also pleaded that the petitioner had not sought prior approval of the Chief Medical Officer/ Director Health Services for taking treatment from the approved hospital by the Nigam i.e Bombay Hospital, Mumbai, as per the requirement of Circular No.2/296/86-IHP-II dated November 19, 1986 (Annexed with Annexure P-4). It is further submitted that the Doctor at P.G.I referred the case of petitioner's wife to All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi ( hereinafter referred to as `the A.I.I.M.S'), but he took her to Bombay Hospital, Mumbai /Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre, Mumbai. We have heard Mr. D.V.Gupta, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, Mr.Gourav Mohunta, appearing for the Nigam and have gone through the records of the case. So far as the objection of the Nigam that the petitioner is getting Fixed Medical Allowance and, therefore, is not entitled for reimbursement is concerned, it is not at all practicable. By no stretch of imagination, it can be assumed and presumed that one could get treatment of serious -4- Civil Writ Petition No.3586 of 2007. ailment like cancer with meager amount of Fixed Medical Allowance. The benefit of giving Fixed Medical Allowance must be for routine medical treatment. However, for treatment of serious ailment, the technicalities should not and could not have been applied. The hyper-technical stand taken by the Nigam is wholly unreasonable and unjustified. The other objection taken by the Nigam is that the amount claimed by the petitioner for his wife's treatment is highly exaggerated. Suffice it to say - since the petitioner had taken treatment of his wife from the P.G.I, Bombay Hospital, Mumbai/ Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre, Mumbai, the genuineness of the bills cannot be disputed. Another object of the Nigam to the reimbursement claim is that the Doctor at P.G.I had referred the case of petitioner's wife to the A.I.I.M.S, but instead of taking her there, he took her to Bombay Hospital, Mumbai/ Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre, Mumbai.. It has been stated in the petition that petitioner's wife was taken to P.G.I for check up from June 25, 2005 to July 07, 2005. She was admitted in the P.G.I on June 08, 2005. Amputation of right hand of petitioner's wife was decided by the Doctor at P.G.I. She was admitted in P.G.I on July 08, 2005 for this purpose. On request of the petitioner, P.G.I authorities discharged his wife on July 10, 2005. The petitioner then took his wife to Bombay Hospital, Mumbai and she was admitted in the Bombay -5- Civil Writ Petition No.3586 of 2007. Hospital & Medical Research Centre, Mumbai, on July 11, 2005, for getting the treatment. The Hospital at Bombay is known for cancer treatment. So far as the availability of medical facilities at the institute like the A.I.I. M.S, Delhi, is concerned, normally the waiting period is so much that the emergency patients most of the times cannot be entertained and they are referred to other hospitals. It is worth noticing that it is only in dire emergency that a person reaches the hospital where immediate treatment can be given. 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 -6- Civil Writ Petition No.3586 of 2007. 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. We cannot lose sight of the factual situation that the wife of the petitioner had been diagnosed to be suffering from cancer and had to be got admitted in the Hospital at Mumbai and required a specialized treatment. It was also not expected of the petitioner to request to the authorities at that point of time for granting him permission to take treatment for his wife from a particular hospital. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that refusal of claim of the petitioner is unreasonable, unjust and arbitrary. The impugned orders are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We, accordingly, allow this writ petition and set aside the orders whereby claim of the petitioner for medical reimbursement has been rejected. The respondents are directed to reimburse to the petitioner the amount equal to the rates of A.I.I.M.S, Delhi. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE JUDGE April 04, 2008. ak