Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 481 (MP)

Chhabilal Singh v. State of M. P.

2019-07-04

SUBODH ABHYANKAR

body2019
ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 9.2.2015 passed by the respondent No.3/Dean, S.S.Medical College, Rewa whereby the petitioner's claim for reimbursement of Rs. 4,23,581/- in the Metro Hospital, New Delhi has been rejected on the ground that no permission for the said treatment was obtained by the petitioner and also that the said hospital is also not authorized by the State of Madhya Pradesh. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that the petitioner retired from the post of Assistant Teacher on attaining the age of superannuation on 2.5.2012 and while he was in service he was suffering from cardiac problem since 2004 and was also being treated for the same. On 28.9.2010 he also obtained the permission to get treatment out of Rewa which was also accorded to him by the Medical Board so that he can take treatment at Bhopal. The case of the petitioner is that although he was getting the treatment at Bhopal but on account of the emergency which arose with respect to his heart problem he was rushed to Metro Hospital, New Delhi for further check up and was admitted on 27.2.2012 where he was advised to undergo emergency operation immediately so that his life can be saved. He was advised for AICD implantation immediately as the problem was serious. The aforesaid implantation was done on 5.3.2012 for which he had no time to seek prior permission. He was discharged from the hospital on 9.3.2012 and according to him a total expenditure of Rs. 6,23,581/- was incurred by him in the aforesaid treatment. It is further stated that out of aforesaid amount, a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs has already been received by him from the Insurance Company, however for the remaining amount of Rs. 4,23,581/- he submitted the bills for reimbursement to the Principal, Govt. Martand Middle School, Rewa but the same was rejected by the impugned order dated 9.2.2015, as the respondents refused to grant ex post facto sanction and rejected the bill on the ground that no prior permission was obtained by the petitioner and also that the said hospital was not authorized by the State Government. 3. Martand Middle School, Rewa but the same was rejected by the impugned order dated 9.2.2015, as the respondents refused to grant ex post facto sanction and rejected the bill on the ground that no prior permission was obtained by the petitioner and also that the said hospital was not authorized by the State Government. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court and has submitted that admittedly the petitioner was suffering from heart ailment and after facing an emergency for the immediate treatment he had to get himself treated at the Metro Hospital, New Delhi and such contingency was not anticipated by the petitioner himself and even if even he has been treated in a hospital not authorizedby the State Government still he is entitled for the same, as he had no control over it. Thus it is submitted that the impugned order be set aside and the respondents be directed to reimburse the amount of Rs. 4,23,581/-. Counsel has also relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 336 . 4. In the return the respondents have denied the contents of the writ petition. It is submitted by the counsel appearing for the respondents that considering the petitioner's ailment the Medical College, Rewa had also referred him to the Bhopal Memorial Hospital and Research Centre, Bhopal (BMHRC) for his further treatment but instead of taking treatment from Bhopal the petitioner has taken the same in the month of February-March, 2012 in the Metro Hospital, New Delhi, which is also not an authorized centre by the State Government. It is further submitted that the petitioner was suffering from Coronary Artery Disease Inferior Wall MI, Ejection Fraction 35% and for that appropriate sanction has already been made to him in the year 2010, but instead of taking steps for curing the aforesaid ailment, in the year 2012 the petitioner had opted to take treatment from the Metro Hospital New Delhi which is not in the list of hospitals as provided by the State, hence when the petitioner has defied the order of recommendation and has treated himself at the Metro Hospital New Delhi, no relief can be granted to him and the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 5. 5. Second return has also been filed by the State reiterating the submissions made in the earlier return filed by the State. It is further submitted that there is no provision under which the reimbursement of the medical bills can be made in respect of the treatment taken from unrecognized hospital, hence it is stated that no illegality has been committed by the respondents in rejecting the petitioner's claim. It is also stated that the petitioner has not demonstrated as to what emergency occurred when he had to get himself treated in the year 2012 without giving any intimation to the concerned authorities of the State Government. The respondents have also placed on record a list of the Government Hospitals situated out of the State of Madhya Pradesh in which the treatment for Government employees is allowed. In the aforesaid list the name of Metro Hospital, New Delhi does not find place. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. From the record this Court finds that so far as the ailment of the petitioner is concerned, indeed he was suffering from coronary artery disease, which was got treated by him in the Metro Hospital New Delhi, however the petitioner has not filed any documents to show that a government employee is entitled to get himself treated in the said hospital which is situated outside the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner has also not referred to any provisions of law under which he is entitled to get the reimbursement of the amount spent in his treatment from an unrecognized hospital. There is no documents on record, which would demonstrate that the petitioner had an emergency and was required to be rushed to the Metro Hospital, New Delhi for his immediate treatment, otherwise his life could have been in danger. Thus, in absence of such certificate or document on record as also the fact that the petitioner has not relied upon any provisions of law nor any circular or notification on the basis of which such claim of the petitioner can be allowed. In the circumstances the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 8. Thus, in absence of such certificate or document on record as also the fact that the petitioner has not relied upon any provisions of law nor any circular or notification on the basis of which such claim of the petitioner can be allowed. In the circumstances the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 8. So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 336 is concerned, in this case the employee had got himself treated in the Escorts Heart Institute, New Delhi while the case of the State was that he was entitled to get reimbursement on the basis of the rates prevalent in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) New Delhi being a Government servant but the Hon'ble apex Court in para 12 of the judgment has also observed that even otherwise the State Government had itself brought the Escorts Heart Institute on the recognized list, hence the claim of the petitioner for the reimbursement of the amount spent by him for his self preservation could not have been denied. Thus the facts of this case are totally different from the facts on hand where the hospital is not recognized, hence the same is distinguishable. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the order rendered by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Prashant Singh Baghel v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in 2014(2) MPLJ 45 , but the facts of this case are also distinguishable, as in the aforesaid case the mother of the petitioner was suffering from liver cancer and was treated by the petitioner and the expenses incurred in her treatment were sought to be reimbursed, but it is not a case where the mother of the petitioner was treated in a hospital not recognized by the State Government. The contention of the State in this case was that the mother of the petitioner was not wholly dependent on her son and as per the State Government's rules known as Madhya Pradesh Kalyan Nidhi Niyam, 1997 for providing the medical facilities to the retired government servant, the mother of the petitioner was not entitled for reimbursement. 10. The contention of the State in this case was that the mother of the petitioner was not wholly dependent on her son and as per the State Government's rules known as Madhya Pradesh Kalyan Nidhi Niyam, 1997 for providing the medical facilities to the retired government servant, the mother of the petitioner was not entitled for reimbursement. 10. Thus, in view of above discussion, the petitioner has not been able to make out any case for interference as he has also failed to show as to why he could not get himself treated in any recognized hospital at Delhi. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. .................