Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2168 (RAJ)

Rambabu Gupta v. State of Rajasthan

2006-07-10

R.C.GANDHI

body2006
Judgment R.C. Gandhi, J.-Petitioner by means of this petition seeks a direction to the respondents to sanction and reiumberse the medical claim amounting to Rs. 1,55,740/-incurred by the petitioner on his treatment at Escort Heart Hospital and Research Center, New Delhi alongwith interest. 2. The petitioner was working as Director Project/Director Engineering on deputation with the Respondent No. 2, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur. He approached the Escort Heart Hospital and Research Center, New Delhi on 11.02.2003 for his medical check up. He was informed of 90% blockage of the artery and the Doctor advised him to undergo immediate operation. The petitioner without taking any risk to his life, got operated. His wife deposited a sum of Rs. 2,42,240/-as expenses incurred on the said heart operation. After the operation, the petitioner submitted bill of expenses incurred by him for re-iumbersement to the Respondent No. 2, which has not been paid by the Respondent No. 2. Under such circumstances, the petitioner has approached the Court for seeking direction as prayed for in the writ petition. 3. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition stating therein that in terms of Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1970, the petitioner is not entitled to reimbursement as he has not obtained certificate based on the opinion of the Principal and Controller, Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur/Director Medical and Health that the treatment of this particular desease from which the petitioner was suffering is not available in any Government Hospital in the State. 4. The writ petition is admitted to hearing and taking for disposal at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, as the pleadings are complete. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner re-iterated the ground set up in the memo of the writ petition and also relied upon Para 15 of the writ petition wherein he has mentioned that persons similarly situated like the petitioner have been granted relief by the respondents. The petitioner has mentioned that Mr. V.K. Soral, Ex-Director (TP) JDA got himself treated in Apollo Hospital, Delhi and expenses spent on the operation to the tune of Rs. 2,29,166/-were reiumbersed to him by the respondent. He has also submitted that other persons were also granted the similar relief , though their names have not been mentioned. The petitioner has mentioned that Mr. V.K. Soral, Ex-Director (TP) JDA got himself treated in Apollo Hospital, Delhi and expenses spent on the operation to the tune of Rs. 2,29,166/-were reiumbersed to him by the respondent. He has also submitted that other persons were also granted the similar relief , though their names have not been mentioned. In reply, to Para 15 of the petition the respondents have stated that the petitioner cannot claim parity. It is also submitted in the reply that taking of medical facility outside the State cannot be considered as a precedent as the circumstances vary from person to person. Taking into consideration the reply that the treatment being taken outside the State, similar treatment cannot be extended to the petitioner and that it cannot be taken as a precedent as it may vary from person to person. The circumstances are required to be considered. 7. The petitioner went for medical check up to Delhi and on medical examination, he was found suffering with 90% blockage of his artery. He was advised by the Doctor to undergo operation immediately to avoid risk to his life. The petitioner taking into consideration the risk to his life got operated immediately as advised. The stand of the respondent that the petitioner should have obtained a certificate from the Principal and Controller of the Medical College and Hospital orthe Director, Medical and Health, Jaipur to the effect that such treatment is not available in the State of Rajasthan may be correct in terms of law but it has to be appreciated that the petitioner was having no time to approach the Principal or the Director to obtain such certificate. He was immediately operated to avoid risk to his life on 13.02.2003 taking into consideration the blockage of artery to the extent of 90% Had the petitioner approached to the Principal or Director, he could not have been operated upon on 13.02.2003 and it may have resulted to a grave and disastrous risk of his life. 8. The case of the petitioner is well founded to be considered for similar treatment. The respondents cannot apply double standards on the pretext that it cannot be taken as a precedent or it may vary from person to person. If this kind of facility is to be made available looking person to person, it is discriminatory. 8. The case of the petitioner is well founded to be considered for similar treatment. The respondents cannot apply double standards on the pretext that it cannot be taken as a precedent or it may vary from person to person. If this kind of facility is to be made available looking person to person, it is discriminatory. While appreciating the case of the petitioner, the respondents should not have ignored the circumstances in which the petitioner was placed to extend him the same treatment stood extended to Mr. V.K. Soral. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Harbir Kaur vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (DB Civil Writ Petition No. 4878/2004 decided on 17.09.2004) reported in 2004 (4) WLC 685 (Raj), while dealing with a similar case where the petitioner has not obtained the requisite certificate from the Principal and Controller of the Medical College and Hospital, got operated in Escort Heart Hospital and Research Center, Delhi, and his medical reiumbersement was also rejected by the State Government, the Court allowed the writ petition holding that the medical reiumbersement is valid and justified and that the word treatment incorporated in Rule 7(1) of the Rules, 1970 shall imply the words specialised treatment and directed reiumbersement of medical claim. 9. Considering the circumstances, wherein the petitioner was placed, it is a fit case where the respondents should extend the same treatment which stood extended to Mr. V.K. Soral. 10. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to sanction and reiumberse the medical claim of the petitioner.