C. R. No. 6983 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 6983 of 2009 Date of Decision : May 17, 2010 Gurmeet Singh Electrician .... Petitioner Vs. The General Manager, Punjab Roadway Depot, Batala and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Plaintiff Gurmeet Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner is employee of defendants-respondents (Punjab Roadways). The plaintiff's case is that he got his ailing wife treated from a private hospital at Gurdaspur from 11.05.2002 till 24.05.2002 and spent Rs.17,149/- on the treatment, but the plaintiff was not granted reimbursement thereof by the defendants. The plaintiff therefore filed suit for recovery of Rs.17,149/-. The defendants inter alia pleaded that the plaintiff did not C. R. No. 6983 of 2009 2 submit the medical bill within prescribed period of six months as per rules. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff did not get his wife treated from approved hospital and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to reimbursement. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur, vide judgment and decree dated 23.11.2007, decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs.17,149/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing suit till date of decree and @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till recovery. However, first appeal preferred by defendants against judgment and decree of the trial court has been allowed by learned District Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 15.05.2008 and suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been preferred by the plaintiff assailing judgment and decree of the lower appellate court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had to get his wife treated for gall-bladder stone and therefore, plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement expenses. The contention cannot be accepted. It is not even the case of the plaintiff that there was any urgency or emergency to get the plaintiff's wife treated from unapproved hospital. It is not disputed that the hospital, where the plaintiff got his wife treated, was an C. R. No. 6983 of 2009 3 unapproved hospital. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to reimbursement of treatment expenses for treatment obtained from unapproved hospital. Had it been the case of emergency and no approved hospital had been available, then reimbursement could be allowed to the extent of permissible limit, as per rates of Government hospital or approved hospital. However, in the instant case, there was no emergency and the plaintiff got his wife treated from hospital of his choice, which hospital was unapproved hospital and therefore, claim of the plaintiff for reimbursement of the treatment expenses has been rightly declined by the defendants. On the other hand, plaintiff had to obtain reference from Government hospital i.e. authorized Medical Officer for getting treatment from some other hospital. No such reference was either obtained by the plaintiff. Learned lower appellate court has rightly non-suited the plaintiff because the plaintiff was not entitled to reimbursement of treatment expenses of his wife for treatment obtained from unapproved hospital. The relevant rules did not permit reimbursement of said expenses. There is no illegality in the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court so as to warrant interference in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. May 17, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE