Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2508 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Kailash Prasad Gupta

2005-09-19

PREM SHANKAR ASOPA, Y.R.MEENA

body2005
Judgment P.S. Asopa, J.-The instant D.B. Special Appeal has been filed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 19.01.2005 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2748 of 2004 whereby the writ petition for medical reimbursement has been allowed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-. The learned Single Judge has not specified the amount of the medical bills of the wife of the petitioner. But a direction has been issued by learned Single Judge to the petitioner to submit an affidavit certifying the bills alongwith copy of the order of learned Single Judge with the further direction to the respondent to make a payment within 30 days. In the writ petition the amount of the medical bills specified by the petitioner in prayer clause is to the tune of Rs. 3,05,643.83 (Three lacs five thousand six hundred forty three point eighty three paisa). 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the writ petitioner who is retired Government Servant and a member of the Rajasthan State Pensioner Medical Concession Scheme has submitted the medical bills of medical treatment of his wife Smt. Laxmi Devi who was suffering from the ailments of Diabetes, High Blood Pressure, Thyroid, Heart and Kidney Diseases. It was submitted in the writ petition that her condition became serious on 27.04.2003 and at about 1O clock in the mid night, she was rushed to nearby clinic where the Doctor concerned referred her case to SMS Hospital/Santokba Durlabhiji Memorial Hospital, Jaipur where intensive care unit was available. It was also submitted by the writ petitioner that he took his wife in the critical condition to SMS Hospital, Jaipur in emergency ward neither immediate care was taken nor any assistance was given. Under the circumstances, there was no option for the petitioner but to take his wife to Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital, Jaipur where she was immediately admitted ultimately died on 21.06.2003. 3. The submission of Counsel for the State is that the medical treatment given to late wife of the petitioner was available in the SMS Hospital, Jaipur and the submission of the petitioner that no care was taken in the emergency ward is not correct. The further submission of the Counsel for the State is that since the treatment has not been taken in the SMS Hospital, Jaipur, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to the medical reimbursement. The further submission of the Counsel for the State is that since the treatment has not been taken in the SMS Hospital, Jaipur, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to the medical reimbursement. The Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital, Jaipur is not a recognised hospital by the State Government under the Schemes/Rules. 4. The submission of the Counsel for the respondent-petitioner is that in situation of the emergency where no proper treatment in SMS Hospital, Jaipur was given she was admitted in Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital, Jaipur. Therefore, the bar of not taking treatment in recognised hospital will not apply and he is entitled for full reimbursement. 5. Learned Single Judge taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case has given a finding that in case of grave emergency whichever hospital comes to the mind to the attendant and which hospital is considered just for saving life is in our view will have equal status of enlisted and recognised hospital. On issues of Emergency and Technicalities learned Single Judge observed as: -"Emergency knows no law and no procedure. The emergency act when required to be committed should not be weighed in terms of money especially when human life is at stake and in such situation even the ultimate responsibility of the State cannot be washed out. A person having put in whole life in the services of the State till he attains the age of superannuation always require human considerations. Technicalities of the rules and regulations are not required to be followed just in a mechanical manner so as to frustrate the very purpose of the scheme." The aforesaid relevant finding is reproduced hereunder for ready reference- In case of grave emergency whichever hospital comes to the mind of the attendant and which hospital is considered just for saving the life of the patient is the prime consideration. Such decisions are sometimes crucial for saving the life of an individual. Emergency knows no law and no procedure. The emergency act when required to be committed should not be weighed in terms of money especially when human life is at stake and in such situation even the ultimate responsibility of the State cannot be washed out. The Court has further observed that in a welfare State, the welfare of the people is frustrated just because of bureaucratic approach of the concerning authorities. The Court has further observed that in a welfare State, the welfare of the people is frustrated just because of bureaucratic approach of the concerning authorities. A person having put in whole life in the services of the State till he attains the age of superannuation always require human considerations. Technicalities of the rules and regulations are not required to be followed just in a mechanical manner so as to frustrate the very purpose of the scheme. 6. We have considered the submission of both the parties and gone through the record of the case and are of the opinion that the present case is of grave emergency and the recognition of the hospital mentioned in the scheme totally becomes irrelevant and the same is not applicable. 7. The Additional Advocate General brought to our notice that even in case of the disease for which the treatment is not available in the Government Hospitals of the State, the ceiling is 80% of the hospital expenditure or Rs. 1,20,000/-whichever is less. The Rule 4-A of the Scheme is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: 4A. Treatment of a disease for which treatment is not available in the Government Hospitals of the State: - (1) Apensioner and the member of his family as defined in Sub-para (5) of Para 3 of the scheme suffering from a disease for which treatment is not available in any Government Hospital in the State shall be entitled to financial assistance under the scheme @ 80% of hospital expenditure or Rs. 1,20,000/-whichever is less in case treatment is taken in a hospital/institution outside the State, recognised by the State Government provided that it is certified by the Principal of a Medical College/Director of Medical & Health Services on the basis of opinion of the Medical Board constituted by the Principal for the purpose to the effect that the treatment of a particular disease from which the patient is suffering is not available in any Government Hospital in the State and it is considered absolutely essential for the recovery of the patient to have treatment at a hospital outside the State. 8. In our view not taking proper care in case of grave emergency amounts to non-availability of the treatment in the Government Hospital and Rule 4-A would apply. The petitioner has claimed reimbursement of Rs. 8. In our view not taking proper care in case of grave emergency amounts to non-availability of the treatment in the Government Hospital and Rule 4-A would apply. The petitioner has claimed reimbursement of Rs. 3,05,643.83 which cannot be allowed to the petitioner as per Rule 4-A according to which petitioner is entitled for Rs. 1,20,000/-with interest @ 9%. 9. In view of the above, the special appeal is partly allowed and the Judgment of the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent of making the payment of Rs. 1,20,000/-with interest @ 9% within a period of one month from today to the non-appellant.