The obligation of the respondent to reimburse medical expenses incurred during a compelling medical emergency, despite the hospital's violation of the circular dated 20.06.2020.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. - The petitioner, who is a serving officer of the Delhi Higher Judicial Services, and is currently posted as the Additional District Judge- 02 South District Saket Courts New Delhi, has approached this Court being aggrieved by the refusal of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 in reimbursing in full the expenses incurred by him for his medical treatment, while he was admitted at the respondent no.5/hospital, between 22.04.2021 to 07.06.2021, on account of Covid-19.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent nos.1 to 3 do not dispute the fact that the petitioner was undergoing treatment for Covid-19 at the respondent no.5/hospital during the said period. It is also undisputed that since at that stage, there were no hospital beds available for his treatment in an empanelled hospital in the NCT of Delhi, the petitioner due his dropping levels of oxygen, had to be rushed to the nearest hospital, being the respondent no.5/hospital, where he remained on ventilator for a period of three weeks. The petitioner, who was in a helpless state at that stage, had no other option but to pay the entire amount of Rs. 24,02,380/- as demanded by respondent no.5, against appropriate receipts. The respondent nos.1 to 3, have however, on the basis of the recommendations made by the Technical Standing Committee constituted by the respondent nos. 1 and 2, reimbursed only a sum of Rs.7,08,500/-. The respondent nos. 1 to 3 have refused to pay the balance sum of Rs.16,93,880/- to the petitioner on the ground that this amount was charged by the respondent no.5 by ignoring the rates prescribed under the circular dated 20.06.2020 issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD)/respondent no.1, fixing the charges leviable for treatment of patients suffering from Covid-19.

3. He submits that the petitioner cannot be faulted or penalised for the respondent no.5 charging amounts higher than what was prescribed by the respondent nos.1 to 3 and in case, the respondent no.5 has acted in violation of the circular dated 20.06.2020, it is for the respondent nos.1 to 3 to take action against the respondent no.5, and make recoveries, if any, from the said respondent. In support of his plea, that once it is admitted that the entire sum of Rs.24,02,380/- was spent by the petitioner for his medical treatment, which he was compelled to take from respondent no.5 on account of the grave threat to his life, and would therefore be entitled to reimbursement of the entire amount, he places reliance on the decisions of this Court in Sqn. Commander Randeep Kumar Rana vs. Union of India, (2004) SCC Online Del 333 and B.R. Goel and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., 2006 (92) DRJ 461.

4. On the other hand, Mrs.Ahlawat, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3, while not really disputing any of the aforesaid facts, submits that the respondent no.5 should be directed to explain before this Court as to why it has not abided by the circular dated 20.06.2020 issued by the respondent no.1. She further submits that the said respondent, who has charged the petitioner way above the rates prescribed in the circular dated 20.06.2020, should be directed to refund the excessive amounts charged from the petitioner.

5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record, I find that the respondent nos. 1 to 3 are not really disputing that the petitioner was in compelling circumstances, and in a grave medical emergency forced to take treatment from respondent no.5, and has paid a sum of Rs.24,04,380/- for his treatment between 22.04.2021 to 07.06.2021. The only justification sought to be given for respondent nos. 1 to 3, for not reimbursing the entire amount to the petitioner, is that the respondent no.5 had not abided by the circular dated 20.06.2020 issued by the GNCTD. In the light of this stand taken by respondent nos. 1to 3, it is evident that the parties are ad idem on the factual position and, therefore, n