Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J. Instant petition has been filed by petitioner seeking reimbursement of his medical bills which were disallowed by Respondent Nos. 1, 2, & 4 and so also claiming adequate damages for agony & sufferance caused to him due to failure of operation undertaken by Respondent No.3 in All India Institute of Medical Science ("AIIMS"), New Delhi (Respondent 5). 2. Facts, in brief , relevant for adjudication of dispute are that petitioner being an Ex-IAS and retired pensioner got himself registered under Central Government Health Services ("CGHS") at CGHS permanent No. 60032. He got surgical operation of his both the legs for total knee replacement at AIIMS on 21.04.2003 where due to some infection, he was again surgically operated on 19.05.2003 - as a result whereof, remained Indoor patient for two months and finally discharged on 16.06.2003 from AIIMS hospital. Owing to some infection erupted, for some time, he remained as Indoor patient in Intensive Care Unit ("ICU"), SMS Hospital, Jaipur and undertook medical treatment whereof in October-November, 2003. Thereafter he submitted medical bills for reimbursement, for which it is not in dispute that all bills furnished by him were duly approved by competent authority under rules for payment by Government functionaries, but Respondents 1, 2, & 4 disallowed certain payment of medical bills vide order dated 05.08.2004 (Annexure13) alongwith calculation sheets (Annexure 13-A & 13-B). Details of payment of medical bills disallowed and questioned by Respondents 1, 2 & 4 are thus:- Amount (in Rs.) Particulars ClaimedAdmissible Disallowed (1) AIIMS N. Delhi 1,32,258 1,26,658 5600/- (2) Cost of Implant 1,50,000 1,30,000 20,000/- (3) Pvt. Attend. Fee 19,050 09,525 09,525/- (4) Transport Charges 15,000 --------15,000/- (5) Medicines O/S AIIMS 45,407 42,000 03,406.76p. 3. Out of total amount of claim furnished for reimbursement. Rs. 53,531.76p., were disallowed by respondents in different head (Supra). 4. Apart from medical bills disallowed, petitioner further submitted that there was negligence on the part of Respondents 3 & 5 (treating doctor & hospital) who have been impleaded as party in person and medically operated his both the legs for total knee replacement; and to show that it was their sheer negligence, documents (Annexure 12 and 12 A) were placed on record. 5. 5. Petitioner appearing in person contends that despite bills duly approved and countersigned by authority competent for reimbursement but without assigning any reason, it has been disallowed by respondents in an arbitrary manner which is in clear violation of CGHS rules providing medical facilities to employees and their family members. Petitioner further submits that after claims were disallowed, he made representation to the authorities pointing out relevant rules, under which decision for disallowing reimbursement of medical claim was unjust and improper and despite even being apprised of , yet authority has failed to consider his submission, which has compelled him to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. Petitioner further submits that there was sheer negligence on the part of doctors who medically treated and operated his total knee replacement in both the legs, for which he made complaint against Respondents 3 and 5 - as a result of negligence on their part, he was again operated on 19.05.2003 and despite 2nd surgical operation undertaken by doctors, infection persisted and was abruptly discharged from AIIMS hospital from 16.06.2003 forcing him to come to Jaipur in compelling circumstances owing to infection erupted causing several blisters, wounds -as a consequence whereof he had to remain indoor patient in ICU at SMS Hospital, Jaipur for treatment of blood septicemias and infected wounds, compelling him to practically bed-ridden for sufficient long time obviously because of sheer negligence of Respondents 3 and 5 and as such, they should be saddled with costs and he should adequately be compensated thereof . Lastly petitioner submits that since reimbursement of medical claim bills has been disallowed arbitrarily despite medical claims were furnished within time but paid belatedly in August/September, 2004; as such he is entitled for interest. 7. According to petitioner, action of Respondents 3 & 5 was inhumane and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. In support of his contentions, petitioner placed reliance upon decisions of Apex Court in Surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 1388 , Rudul Sah vs. State of Bihar, 1983 (4) SCC 141 , and of Allahabad High Court in N.C. Upadhya vs. State of UP, AIR 1965 All. 336 and of this Court in Himmat Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, 2005 (2) WLC 268 . 8. 336 and of this Court in Himmat Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, 2005 (2) WLC 268 . 8. Respondents 3 & 5 (treating doctor & Hospital) and 1, 2 & 4 (reimbursing authority) have filed their separate reply. The reimbursing authority in their reply inter alia averred that medical bills furnished by petitioner have been considered and what has been admissible under Reimbursement Rules have been sanctioned and paid to him while rest have been disallowed. As regards those disallowed bills, it has been specifically mentioned by reimbursing authority in Schedule (Annexure 13A) alongwith document (Annexure13) furnished by petitioner, for which they cannot be asked to make payment beyond Reimbursement Rules -in support whereof, Counsel placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. Ram Lubhaya Bagga, 1998 (4) SCC 117 . 9. Respondents 3 & 5 in their reply raised preliminary objection that since petitioner was surgically operated and medically related in AIIMS at New Delhi with respect to total knee replacement in his both legs, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction at least to entertain petition about claim of compensation demanded by petitioner in view of Article 226(2) of the Constitution. That apart, it has been averred by them that vague & bald allegations have been imputed by petitioner while surgical operation was undertaken by duly qualified and competent doctors and that being so, medical operation was successful and as regards 2nd operation, since petitioner was complaining pain in his knees which created doubts synovial hypertrophy and impingement while there was no evidence of infection either on intra operative findings or on investigations of tissues sent for culture as a consequence whereof , there was improvement in complaint of pain subsequently and petitioner was got discharged in perfect condition - at that time also, there was no evidence about infection on clinical analysis rather patient being pain free was walking full weight bearing at the time of discharge from hospital. Respondents (doctor) further specifically averred that as per medical jurisprudence, if infection continues from knee point, implant itself becomes loosen and there is destruction of bones which was not present in case of petitioner at the time of discharge. Respondents (doctor) further specifically averred that as per medical jurisprudence, if infection continues from knee point, implant itself becomes loosen and there is destruction of bones which was not present in case of petitioner at the time of discharge. As regards procedure for surgical operation adopted by treating doctors & hospital, Respondents 3 and 5 have specifically denied in Para 6 of their reply while disputing each and every question raised by petitioner in pleadings of his petition. 10. Counsel for Respondents 3 and 5 vehemently contends that apart from territorial jurisdiction of this Court in entertaining this petition qua claiming of compensation against them, the facts raised by petitioner imputing negligence on their part, have seriously been disputed with reasonable justification put forward in the reply and such disputes can only be resolved by adducing evidence by either of parties and need not be gone into by this Court in fettered jurisdiction available Under Article 226 of the Constitution. In support of contentions, Counsel placed reliance upon decisions of Apex Court in National Textile Corpn vs. Haribux Swalram, 2004 (9) SCC 786 , DLF Housing Const. (P) Ltd vs. Delhi Municipal Corpn., AIR 1976 SC 386 , Grid Corpn. Orissa vs. Sukamani Das, 199 (7) SCC 298 (sic) and Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab, 2005 (6) SCC 1 . 11. I have pondered over rival contentions of the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. Before adverting to travesty of justice put forwarded by respondents, e.q. preliminary objection I would like to first deal with issue of medical bills disallowed by respondents, on which fate of this petition also hinges. The factum of medical bills duly signed and approved by the competent authority under rules has not been disputed by the respondents. Re. Traveling Allowance/Transport Charges 12. Petitioner claimed transport charges of Rs. 15,000/-incurred in journey to New Delhi undertaken for surgical operation of total knee replacement at AIIMS upon referral order, but it was disallowed vide communication dated 010.2004 (Annexure 17) only on premise that it was not acceded to him as the treatment of total knee replacement was available in Jaipur. 13. Petitioner claimed transport charges of Rs. 15,000/-incurred in journey to New Delhi undertaken for surgical operation of total knee replacement at AIIMS upon referral order, but it was disallowed vide communication dated 010.2004 (Annexure 17) only on premise that it was not acceded to him as the treatment of total knee replacement was available in Jaipur. 13. Chapter 10 of CGHS deals with Travelling Allowance for medical treatment, as per which such an allowance for journeys undertaken for medical treatment (both ways) is admissible in following cases:- .(i) Patient (i.e., a Central Government employee or a member of his/her family) who is required to undertake journey outside the limits of the city and the distance traveled from the place where he/she has fallen ill to the hospital/dispensary/clinic is more than 8 kms, each way. An authorized medical attendant to whom the patient was referred must certify that the journey undertaken to obtain appropriate medical treatment is unavoidable. .(ii) Attendant or escort who is required to travel alongwith patient, if the medical authority attending the patient has certified in writing that it is unsafe for the patient to travel alone and an attendant/escort is necessary to accompany him. (iii) Donor of Kidneys who is required to travel for donating kidney to a Government servant or the member of his family. (iv) Pensioners permitted for treatment in another city, if such treatment is not available in the same city, on the advise of the Government/CGHS specialists, shall be entitled for traveling allowance restricted to the distance up to the Referral Hospitals available in the nearest city by the shortest route. In case of any deviation, prior permission of Director, CGHS may be obtained. 14. Chapter 10 also details out circumstances for entitlement of traveling allowance as under:- 1. Patient and his attendant/escort are entitled to claim traveling allowance (plus daily allowance) for the period of journey undertaken by entitled or lower class by rail/road/air/steamer/ship etc., for entitlement of TA/DA please refer to Nabhis Referencer for Central Government employees, published every year around October. 2.Payment of air fare may be allowed if the Government is satisfied that the air travel was absolutely essential, for travel by any other mode would have definitely endangered the life of the patient or involved a risk of serious aggravation of his/her condition. 3. 2.Payment of air fare may be allowed if the Government is satisfied that the air travel was absolutely essential, for travel by any other mode would have definitely endangered the life of the patient or involved a risk of serious aggravation of his/her condition. 3. Certificatefrom Chief Administrating Medical Officer is not required to be obtained where it is certified that patient must undertake journey by air outside the State for obtaining emergency/life saving treatment." 15. Undeniably, petitioner was initially admitted in SMS Hospital, Jaipur where it was since not possible to surgically operated for total knee replacement, his case was referred by SMS Hospital to AIIMS New Delhi as approved by Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 08.01.2003 (Annexure 2) - in pursuance whereof , petitioner had proceeded and undertaken journey to New Delhi. In view of specific provision made in Chapter 10 (Supra) for making payment towards traveling allowance and once petitioner was referred to by SMS Hospital duly approved by Respondent No. 2 vide order (Annexure 2) for his medical treatment at AIIMS New Delhi, his claim for traveling allowance to a sum of Rs.15,000/-could not have been disallowed by Respondents only on premise that such treatment is available in Jaipur. Accordingly his claim of Rs. 15,000/-towards transport charges deserves acceptance. Re. Implants for two knees replacement 16. Petitioner claimed Rs. 1.5 lacs for total knee replacement in his both the legs whereas respondents disallowed claim for Rs. 20,000/-vide order dated 010.2004 (Annexure 17) holding that under CGHS Rules admissibility of claim for one implant of total knee replacement is restricted to Rs. 60,000/- + Rs. 5,000/-. 17. Chapter 6 provides for reimbursement for specialized tests and treatments -according to which, CGHS beneficiaries possessing a valid CGHS card can avail treatment facilities in all over India of Medical Sciences for which no prior permission/approval will be necessary from concerned department/CGHS; and expenditure on treatment shall be reimbursed as per rates of AIIMS and as per entitlement of the beneficiary. It has also been provided that cost of knee implants shall be reimbursed to maximum ceiling of Rs. 60,000/-+ costs of bone cement Rs. 5,000/-if beneficiary has undergone in Government/private recognized hospital with prior permission of competent authority. 18. It has also been provided that cost of knee implants shall be reimbursed to maximum ceiling of Rs. 60,000/-+ costs of bone cement Rs. 5,000/-if beneficiary has undergone in Government/private recognized hospital with prior permission of competent authority. 18. Extract of Chapter 6 with treatment at AIIMS and so also Government/Private recognized hospital with regard to costs of knee implants is reproduced as under:- "Treatment at AIIMS CGHS beneficiaries possessing a valid CGHS card can avail treatment facilities in the All India of Medical Sciences for which no prior permission/approval will be necessary from concerned department/CGHS; The expenditure on treatment shall be reimbursed as per rates of AIIMS and as per entitlement of the beneficiary. Drugs prescribed by the AIIMS during OPD treatment will be obtained from concerned CGHS dispensary. Rates of reimbursement prescribed by AIIMS are given in Appendix III in the end of this book. Reimbursement of Cost of Knee and Hip Implants - (i) The costs of knee and Hip implants shall be reimbursed as under:- Item Maximum ceiling Knee Implant Rs. 60,000/- + the cost of bone cement Rs. 5,000/- Hip Implant Rs. 35,000/- + the cost of bone cement Rs. 5,000/- (ii) The beneficiary should have undergone the treatment in a Government/Private recognized hospital with prior permission of competent authority: (iii) The implant shall be purchased on the recommendation of the orthopaedic specialist of the recognized hospital and based on the lowest of three quotations. .(iv) The treating orthopaedic specialist shall issue a certificate to the effect that the implant has been implanted successfully and is functioning satisfactory. .(v) Medical advance for the purchase of implant shall be paid directly to the supplier, which will be up to 80% of the lowest quotation or 80% of the maximum reimbursable amount, whichever is less. Once sanction for treatment upon his case was referred by SMS Hospital in favour of petitioner for his both knees replacement to be undergone at AIIMS New Delhi vide order dated 08.01.2003 (Annexure 2) - validity whereof was for a period of six months with stipulation for entitlement of reimbursement of medical expenditure incurred as per rates of CGHS, and as per prescription of AIIMS New Delhi (Annexure 3), estimated cost was prescribed as Rs. 1.5 lacs for treatment of both knees replacement, as was informed by Department of Orthopaedics AIIMS New Delhi in its communication dated 01.04.2003 (Annexure 8) and dated 02.05.2003 (Annexure 5) in my opinion, petitioner is entitled for that amount of Rs. 1.5 lacs particularly when medical bills were furnished by petitioner were duly approved and sanctioned from the authority competent and that apart, as per CGHS Rules, (Supra), if one gets treatment at AIIMS expenditure incurred on treatment shall be reimbursed as per rates of AIIMS and as per entitlement of the beneficiary; and only in case patient underwent treatment of knee implant either in a Government or private recognized hospital other than AIIMS but with prior permission of competent authority, rates of reimbursement have been separately notified of Rs. 60,000/-+ cost of bone cement Rs. 5,000/-for one knee implant. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for expenditure incurred and actually paid undoubtedly to AIIMS to extent of Rs. 1.5 lacs and amount disallowed to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-by respondents is contrary to CGHS Rules quoted supra. Re. Diet Charges of Rs. 5,600/- 19. Petitioner claimed bill of Rs. 1,32,258/-duly approved and countersigned by AIIMS authority, out of which Rs. 5,600/-claimed towards diet charges were disallowed vide letter dated 05.08.2004 (Annexure 13 and 13A) for which no reason has been assigned and even before this Court no justification was put forward by Respondents 1, 2 and 4 despite conversely Chapter 5 relating to medical facilities under CGHS provides as under:- "All CGHS beneficiaries and their eligible family members can avail following facilities:- (o) Free diet -CGHS beneficiaries having basic pay up to Rs. 4050/-per month shall be entitled for free diet during hospitalization. However, the limit shall be Rs. 6,000/-p.m. in cases of beneficiaries suffering from Tuberculosis and mental disease." 20. In instant case, claim of petitioner with respect to diet charges of Rs. 5600/-is within limit prescribed under CGHS Rules (Supra) and in my opinion, diet charges claimed has wrongly been disallowed by respondents. Re. Claim of Private Attendant Fee 21. Petitioner claimed Rs. 19,050/-towards private attendants charges out of which Rs. 9525/-were disallowed by respondents vide calculation sheet (Annexure 13A) on the premise that Rs. 5600/-is within limit prescribed under CGHS Rules (Supra) and in my opinion, diet charges claimed has wrongly been disallowed by respondents. Re. Claim of Private Attendant Fee 21. Petitioner claimed Rs. 19,050/-towards private attendants charges out of which Rs. 9525/-were disallowed by respondents vide calculation sheet (Annexure 13A) on the premise that Rs. 75/-per12 hrs duty is admissible vide Ministrys order dated 15.09.1995 CGHS Rules (Nabhi Public p. 57) deals with Reimbursement of Special Nursing and Aya/Attendant Charges as under:- .(i) Reimbursement of special nursing and Aya/Attendant Charges is allowed for- .(a) Special Nurse - Rs. 150/-per shift of 12 hrs. .(b) Aya/attendant - Rs. 75/-per shift of 12 hrs. .(ii) The reimbursement is allowed subject to the condition that the medical officer-in-charge or an equivalent medical officer of the treating hospital certifies that the services of a special Nurse/Aya/Attendant were essential for the recovery/prevention of serious deterioration in the condition of the patient. (iii) Thebeneficiaries are not eligible for reimbursement of charges for engagement of special Nurse/Aya/Attendant at their residence even though recommended by the treating specialist. (iv) Reimbursement of special nursing and Aya/attendant charges may be allowed by the Deputy Directors of CGHS provided the treatment has been taken in a recognized hospital with prior permission. In view of CGHS Rules (Supra), attendant charges for special nurse are allowed of Rs. 150/-per shift of 12 hrs provided such charges are duly certified by medical Officer-in-charge or an equivalent medical officer of the treating hospital that the services of a special Nurse/Aya/Attendant were essential for the recovery/prevention of serious deterioration in the condition of patient. In instant case, it is not disputed by Respondents 1, 2, and 4 that certificate as required under CGHS Rules(Supra) was not furnished by petitioner while claiming reimbursement of private attendant fee. In this view of matter, amount claimed of private Attendant/Nurse has been disallowed contrary to rules and petitioner is entitled for the same. Re. Medicines purchased O/S Hospital 22. Petitioner claimed Rs. 45,407.04p., for medicines purchased outside hospital by CGHS beneficiary out of which Rs. 3406.76p as per list (Annexure 13B) have been disallowed. A bare look at the list shows that it relates to certain sundry items like gloves, thermometer, walker, dettol, commode and urine pot etc. Re. Medicines purchased O/S Hospital 22. Petitioner claimed Rs. 45,407.04p., for medicines purchased outside hospital by CGHS beneficiary out of which Rs. 3406.76p as per list (Annexure 13B) have been disallowed. A bare look at the list shows that it relates to certain sundry items like gloves, thermometer, walker, dettol, commode and urine pot etc. These items are disposable surgical sundries and as per Ministry of Health letter dated 16.06.1982 (See p.234 Nabhi Publication), cost of disposable surgical sundries are allowed and reimbursed subject to provisions laid down in Central Service (Medical Attendant) Rules concerned from "Service Head" provided they ae duly certified being essential as a part of it. As per CGHS Rules, (Nabhi Publication p.47) CGHS beneficiaries are entitled to reimbursement of cost of disposable surgical sundries subject to following conditions:- .(i) Treating specialist/doctor should certify that the Disposable Surgical sundries were essential as a part of treatment. .(ii) No reimbursement is allowed for the items of common surgical material like gauze, bandages, leucoplast, cotton, crepe bandage etc. Which are supplied from the hospitals/ dispensaries. Thus viewed, I do not find any error committed by Respondents 1, 2, and 4 in disallowing Rs. 3406.76p under this head, which is in consonance with CGHS Rules. 23. Now I advert to submission made by petitioner imputing negligence against Respondents 3 and 5 committed in course of surgical operation for total knee replacement of his both the legs. In order to justify his imputation of negligence against treating doctor and hospital (Respondents 3 and 5) petitioner has made averments in writ petition -in support whereof , also filed documents including Annexure 12 and 12A and in counter whereof on the other hand, these respondents have also filed detailed reply disputing an iota of negligence if at all committed on their part course of providing medical treatment and surgical operation on the person of petitioner and wherein negligence imputed against them has specifically been not only disputed but also denied in respect of operation undertaken by them. Apart from preliminary objection raised by respondents, which too in view of facts stated in writ petition and reply thereto, involved complexed and disputed questions, I find substance in their submission that facts of negligence once seriously disputed and denied by them cannot be established unless parties are permitted to lead evidence in support of their respective pleadings on record and unless competent forum arrives at conclusion so as to resolve the dispute as to whether there was any negligence on the part of treating doctor and hospital in regard to medical treatment extended or surgical operation undertaken on the patient (petitioner). In my considered opinion, no finding either way in respect of complicated question of fact in regard to imputed negligence can be arrived at by this Court in writ jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution. My view is fortified from decisions of Apex Court in Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab, DLF Housing Const. vs. Delhi Municipal Corpn., Gridco vs. Sukamnidas, & National Textile Corpn. vs. Haribux (Supra).Similarly, submission made by petitioner that action of Respondents 3 and 5 was in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, is of no substance at this stage once I refrained from entering into disputed questions of fact in respect of negligence in absence whereof , no finding has come forward and arrived at in facts and circumstances placed on record, Judgment s cited by petitioner are also of no assistance. 24. That apart, I do not find anything placed on record by petitioner qua deliberate act or delay in making payment of his medical reimbursement bills in question by respondents, I am not inclined to award interest over the disallowed amount or paid if any, belatedly particularly when this Court has been informed that petitioner was also paid in advance to meet out medical expenses before undergoing treatment and surgical operation at AIIMS New Delhi. 25. Consequently, this writ petition is partly allowed. Decision of respondents in disallowing claim for reimbursement of medical bills (except under head of Medicine purchased outside Hospital to the tune of Rs. 3406.76p) is set aside. Respondents 1, 2 and 4 are directed to make payment of disallowed claim (except Rs. 3406.76p.) towards (i) Travelling allowance Rs. 15,000/-(ii) deficit cost of implant Rs. 20,000/-(iii) Private Attendant/Male Nurse fee Rs. 9,525/-and (iv) diet charges Rs. 5600/-. 3406.76p) is set aside. Respondents 1, 2 and 4 are directed to make payment of disallowed claim (except Rs. 3406.76p.) towards (i) Travelling allowance Rs. 15,000/-(ii) deficit cost of implant Rs. 20,000/-(iii) Private Attendant/Male Nurse fee Rs. 9,525/-and (iv) diet charges Rs. 5600/-. All exercise to ensure compliance of this order be made within two months. No costs.