Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1647 (RAJ)

STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SUMER SINGH

2017-07-25

GOVIND MATHUR, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2017
ORDER : Govind Mathur and Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur, JJ. This appeal is preferred to challenge correctness of judgment dated 13.1.2017 passed by learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7675/2014. By the judgment impugned while accepting the petition for writ preferred by a retired government servant, directed the appellant-respondent to reimburse the complete amount of medical expenditure incurred by the petitioner for his treatment at a Government Hospital as defined under Rule 3(6) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2008. 2. The case of the appellant is that as per Rule 4 of the Rules of 2008, the respondent-petitioner is entitled to have reimbursement of medical expenditure only to the extent that is approved by the Advisory Committee. 3. We do not find any merit in the argument advanced. 4. Rule 4 of the Rules of 2008 pertains to constitution of health benefits advisory committee and that reads as follows :- "4. Constitution of health Benefits Advisory Committee: A standing Health Benefits Advisory Committed, headed by Principal secretary (Finance) and consisting of Pr. Secretary/Secretary, Medical Education, Principal, S.M.S. Medical College, Jaipur, Principal Medical College, Udaipur, Superintendent, S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur, Director, Medical & health Services, Director, Ayurved and an Officer not below the rank of Deputy Secretary nominated by Principal Secretary, Finance, who shall be Member Secretary of the Committee is constituted with following terms of reference :- (i). Lay down norms and procedure for approving private/charitable hospitals, diagnostic centres; (ii). Examine and recommend such hospitals/diagnostic centre for approval by the Government. (iii). Determine and suggest the extent of reimbursement for treatment undertaken and tests carried out in approved hospitals/labs. (iv). Examine and recommend implants essential for treatment and recommend the amount/extent of reimbursement for such implants; (v). Determine and suggest the category of ailments for which treatment in private hospitals within the State may be allowed; (vi). Recommend the negative list of allopathic drugs and medicines, which will not be eligible for reimbursement; (vii). Recommend the classes or list of Ayurvedic, Anani and Homeopathic Drugs and Medicines and Pharmacists considered necessary for reimbursement; The Committee may also give recommendation on any other related issues on its own motion or on the issue referred to it by the Government. Recommend the classes or list of Ayurvedic, Anani and Homeopathic Drugs and Medicines and Pharmacists considered necessary for reimbursement; The Committee may also give recommendation on any other related issues on its own motion or on the issue referred to it by the Government. The Committee may also recommend rates for various treatments/tests and investigations in SMS and other government hospitals." A bare reading of the provisions aforesaid make it clear that the same is having application for approved hospitals and not go government hospitals. The term "Approved Hospital" as defined under Sub-Section (7) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 2008 means a private or charitable hospital in Rajasthan, which is included in Appendix-I or which is approved by the Government, on the recommendation of the Committee, formed under these Rules. 5. The hospital where the respondent-petitioner has undergone treatment is admittedly a government hospital. The argument advanced, thus, is fundamentally misconceived. The appeal, as such, is having no merit hence dismissed. While parting with the case, we would like to state that the appellant-respondent has yet not disbursed the complete amount of medical expenditure as directed by the learned Single Bench. The appellant, thus, is directed to reimburse the entire amount by 04.8.2017. In the event of failure to make the payment on or before the date aforesaid shall make the respondents liable for payment of interest @ 15% per annum on the amount with initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. A compliance report is required to be filed by the respondents before the Dy. Registrar (Judl.) of this Court on or before 8.8.2017.