Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2233 (RAJ)

Usha Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2019-08-20

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The petitioners have preferred this writ petition claiming the following reliefs: "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to allow this writ petition and the respondents may be directed to make the payment tot he petitioners of medical reimbursement to the tune of Rs. 9,12,457/-along with interest at at the rate of 12% per annum by further imposing cost. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in favour of the petitioners may also be awarded in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. The husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 was duly selected and appointed as a Constable by the respondents on 11th March, 1985. Late Shri Suresh Chand Sharma while working on the post of Constable at Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur seriously fell ill and was admitted in SMS Hospital on 25th October, 2008 and was put on dialysis. The Doctors of the SMS recommended HLA test at AIIMS New Delhi to be conducted upon Shri Suresh Chand Sharma. Upon such recommendation, Shri Suresh Chand Sharma was taken to New Delhi to undergo the treatment where he fell critically ill and was taken to Indraprasth Apollo Hospital, New Delhi being nearest place even before the HLA test was conducted on the recommendation of the Doctors of SMS Hospital. In the aforesaid emergent circumstance, Shri Suresh Chand Sharma remained hospitalised from 8th June, 2009 to 29th August, 2009. Upon returning Suresh Chand Sharma again fell ill and was admitted in SMS Hospital on 6th September, 2009 but expired on 11th September, 2009. The bone of contention in the present matter is sum of Rs.9,12,457/- which was expenditure incurred in the Indraprasth Apollo Hospital, New Delhi. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner Shri Nikhil Simlote submits that petitioner went to Delhi on recommendation of the Doctors of SMS hospital to have a test done and upon reaching Delhi, he fell seriously ill and was having no other option but to rush to the nearest medical centre i.e. Indraprasth Apollo Hospital, New Delhi. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that though rule prescribes for reimbursement only to the extent of expenditure incurred in Government Hospital but in such medical emergency, the respondents ought to take a lenient view and the complete reimbursement ought to have been granted. 5. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that though rule prescribes for reimbursement only to the extent of expenditure incurred in Government Hospital but in such medical emergency, the respondents ought to take a lenient view and the complete reimbursement ought to have been granted. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners has relied upon the judgment of this Hon'ble court passed at Jodhpur in Ashok Kumar Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., SB Civil Writ Petition No.2660/2007, decided on 3rd April, 2014. The relevant portion reads as follows: "8. In view of aforesaid judgments of this Court, this Court is of the clear opinion that part reimbursement only made to the petitioner and that too under the interim orders of this Court, is not justified and the complete expenditure for such treatment incurred by the peitioner deserves to be reimbursed to him. The relevant facts about his serious ailment, taking treatment in an emergent situation at AIIMS, New Delhi, and actual expenditure incurred by him, are not in dispute. 9. Consequently, this writ peition is allowed and the respondent-State is directed to make the balance payment of Rs 1,63,887/- (2,73,887- 1,10,000= 1,63,887/-) within a period of three months from today. If the said anount is not paid within a period of three months from today, the same shall carry the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present writ petition. No costs. A Copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith." 6. Learned counsel for petitioners also relied upon the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in the matter of Shanker Lal Mathur (Dr.) Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., SB Civil Writ Petition No.3222/2001, decided on 29th July, 2003. The relevant portion being Para 7 and 15 read as follows: "7. There is also no dispute on the point that through Annex. 2 dated 15.04.1999, a Medical Board was constituted and through Annex. 3 dated 19.04.1999, the Medical Board recommended and referred the case of the petitioner for by-pass surgery to AIIMS, New Delhi. 15. Thus, in view of the above observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court, the action of the respondents denying medical expenses incurred by the petitioner on his By pass Surgery at Escort Institute, New Delhi is clearly arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust. 15. Thus, in view of the above observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court, the action of the respondents denying medical expenses incurred by the petitioner on his By pass Surgery at Escort Institute, New Delhi is clearly arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust. It appears that the petitioner was confined to bed, therefore, he could not seek prior permission from the Government and apart from this, first he approached the AIIMS, Hospital New Delhi for by-pass surgery, but there was huge waiting list and health of the petitioner was not permitting to wait so long and therefore, in these circumstances, he had undergone by-pass surgery at Escort Institute, New Delhi and though the case of the petitioner was referred to AIIMS, New Delhi, but it would make no difference." 7. Learned counsel for respondents Mr. Prakhar Gupta submits that Rule 10(3) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2008 (in short "the Rules of 2008") does not permit reimbursement in question. Rule 10(3) of the Rules of 2008 reads as follows: "10(3). If a Government servant undertakes indoor treatment of life threatening disease like kidney, heart and some sudden accident, in a private hospital outside the State, without reference in case of emergent circumstances, Government may allow reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred upto the cost of treatment, that would have been incurred had the treatment been taken in S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur and if facility of that treatment is not available in S.M.S. Hospital , Jaipur upto the cost of treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi, upon such emergent circumstances being explained satisfactorily. No Travelling Allowance shall be admissible in such cases." 8. Learned counsel for respondents is however not in a position to refute the fact that the deceased was recommended by the Doctors of SMS Hospital to undergo HLA test at AIIMS, New Delhi and while travelling to Delhi, deceased-Suresh Chand Sharma fell ill resulting into treatment at Indraprasth Apollo Hospital, New Delhi. 9. Learned counsel for respondents is also not in a position to dispute the applicability of the precedent laws cited by learned counsel for petitioners. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the opinion that this is a case where deceased-Suresh Chand Sharma was bonafidely seeking treatment in SMS Hospital which entitled him all reimbursement. 9. Learned counsel for respondents is also not in a position to dispute the applicability of the precedent laws cited by learned counsel for petitioners. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the opinion that this is a case where deceased-Suresh Chand Sharma was bonafidely seeking treatment in SMS Hospital which entitled him all reimbursement. Due to recommendation of a particular test to be conducted at AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi, the deceased-Suresh Chand Sharma travelled to Delhi and due to medical emergency got himself treated at Indraprasth Apollo Hospital, New Delhi. The deceased-Suresh Chand Sharma after returning conducted his treatment at SMS Hospital and expired in SMS Hospital. The chain of events show that deceased-Suresh Chand Sharma had clear intention to take complete treatment from SMS Hospital but was forced to go to New Delhi to take medical test and thus took treatment at Indraprasth Apollo Hospital, New Delhi only as an emergent situation which arose on his arrival at New Delhi. The precedent laws cited by learned counsel for petitioner are covering the field. 11. Hence, the present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to make complete medical reimbursement to the petitioners who are surviving wife and children of Late Shri Suresh Chand Sharma to the tune of Rs.9,12,457/-. The amount already paid shall be deducted from the final amount to be paid. The petitioners shall be entitled to receive the interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition to the time amount is paid. The necessary compliance shall be made within a period of three months.