Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 675 (RAJ)

Dev Kumari Ahir v. State of Rajasthan

2018-03-05

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

body2018
ORDER : Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. The present writ petition has been filed by wife of Ramswaroop ASI making many fold claims like salary, compensation for suffering mental agony due to accident suffered by her husband, reimbursement of expenses incurred in medical treatment, lump sum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards medical bills, assessment for disablement by Medical Board etc. 2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that husband of the petitioner was working as Assistant Sub-inspector (ASI) in civil police and while discharging his duties at Police Station Mania, District Dholpur, he met with an accident and suffered severe multiple injuries on all over his body. The husband of the petitioner was immediately taken to the Government Hospital Dholpur and the doctors on duty there after providing the first aid, advised the other police personnel to shift him to the Government Hospital, Agra as the Hospital at Dholpur was lacking emergency facilities. 3. The petitioner's husband was taken to the Government Hospital Agra and since same conditions were prevailing there and no immediate medical attention to save his life was taken, the husband of the petitioner was taken and admitted to private Hospital known as Kamayani Hospital, Agra (UP). The husband of the petitioner suffered an attack of Paralysis and lost his speech also and as such, the condition of husband of the petitioner became precarious. It is stated that the petitioner's husband remained admitted in Kamayani Hospital, Agra (UP) from 03.11.2002 to 05.06.2003 and he spent substantial amount in his medical treatment i.e. Rs. 88,517/-. 4. The petitioner before filing the writ petition served a notice on the respondents demanding the reimbursement of medical expenses incurred in the treatment. The respondents instead of paying the said amount, replied back and informed the petitioner that expenses incurred in medical treatment at private Hospital at Agra was not admissible as the petitioner's husband had not taken treatment in a Government Hospital. 5. The petitioner feeling aggrieved against such illegal action of the respondents, filed the instant petition. 6. The respondents instead of paying the said amount, replied back and informed the petitioner that expenses incurred in medical treatment at private Hospital at Agra was not admissible as the petitioner's husband had not taken treatment in a Government Hospital. 5. The petitioner feeling aggrieved against such illegal action of the respondents, filed the instant petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the husband of the petitioner was admitted in private Hospital for his treatment due to non availability of treatment at Government Hospital, Dholpur and further he was taken to Government Hospital, Agra (UP) and there was also due to lack of proper treatment, the petitioner's husband was admitted in private Hospital at Agra to save his life. Mr. R.S. Bhadauria, counsel for the petitioner submits that the expenses incurred in medical treatment cannot be denied on the ground that the petitioner did not receive the treatment in a Government Hospital. Learned counsel submits that to save life of a patient, the treatment either at Government Hospital or in a private Hospital does not make any difference and entitlement of such person for medical reimbursement, cannot be denied on artificial grounds. 7. Dr. A.S. Khangarot, learned Government Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner has already been made payment of Rs. 15,000/- against the medical expenses incurred in treatment of the petitioner's husband from the welfare fund and as such no further claim can be made for full payment of expenses, incurred in the medical treatment. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner's husband on his own took treatment in a private Hospital and as such no direction may be given to release the payment in favour of the petitioner. 9. I have heard both the counsel. 10. In the opinion of the Court, the claim of the petitioner for medical reimbursement in a private Hospital cannot be denied in toto. It has been a policy of the State Government that if treatment is taken in a private Hospital in emergent situation, claim for reimbursement at the rate of Government Hospital/Institution, cannot be denied to such employees. 11. This Court is also of the opinion that though the claim of the petitioner for Rs. It has been a policy of the State Government that if treatment is taken in a private Hospital in emergent situation, claim for reimbursement at the rate of Government Hospital/Institution, cannot be denied to such employees. 11. This Court is also of the opinion that though the claim of the petitioner for Rs. 88,517/- may not be justified but the treatment which the petitioner husband had taken as per Government rates and the expenses incurred therein, are required to be reimbursed to her. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance a judgment in AIR 1996 SC 1388 , (Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.) where the Apex Court has held that a person if he has goes to save his live to a private Hospital, is entitled at least at the rates admissible as per the Government Hospital/approved hospital. 13. This Court is of the opinion that as far as other claims are concerned, the same cannot be granted in the present writ petition as the petitioner's husband was subsequently compulsorily retired vide order dated 23.07.2005 passed by the Superintendent of Police, District Dholpur. 14. The claim of the petitioner for the expenses incurred in the treatment is allowed to the extent of expenses admissible as per the treatment given in a Government Hospital or approved hospital. The respondents are directed to verify the claim of the petitioner in respect of Rs. 88,517/- and after calculating the expenses which could be incurred in treatment in a Government Hospital, the same may be paid to the petitioner within a period of five weeks. 15. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise other legal claims as per law before appropriate forum. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.