2014 Supreme(Raj) 1223
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Vineeta Kothari, J.
Ashok Kumar Jain - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2660 of 2007.
Decided On : 3-04-2014
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Rajesh Shah, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Sunil Joshi and Rajesh Panwar, AAG.
Government servants are entitled to complete reimbursement of medical expenses incurred in emergency situations, even if the treatment is taken outside the State and at a non-recognized hospital.
Headnote:
MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT - RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES (MEDICAL ATTENDANCE) RULES, 1970 - RULES 6 AND 7 - REIMBURSEMENT OF MEDICAL EXPENSES INCURRED BY GOVERNMENT SERVANT FOR TREATMENT OUTSIDE STATE IN EMERGENCY - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a government servant, suffered from a heart ailment and underwent treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi, in an emergency. His claim for reimbursement of medical expenses under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1970 (Rules of 1970) was not sanctioned.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was entitled to complete reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him for treatment of his heart ailment at AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi, as the treatment was taken in an emergency and AIIMS was a recognized hospital under Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules of 1970.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to complete reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him for treatment of his heart ailment at AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on its previous judgments in Jawahar Lal Bohra v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and Smt. Usha Mehta v. State of Rajasthan and ors. to hold that the petitioner was entitled to complete reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him. The court held that the Rules of 1970 should be interpreted liberally and sympathetically to ensure that government servants are not denied reimbursement of medical expenses incurred in emergency situations.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent-State to make the balance payment of Rs. 1,63,887/- within a period of three months from the date of the order.
JUDGMENT
1. - The petitioner was working as Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sirohi, at the relevant time and has filed the present writ petition in this Court on 25.04.2007 claiming reimbursement of the medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,73,887/- paid by him to All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi (AIIMS, New Delhi, for short) for treatment of his heart ailment and insertion of two stent(s) in an emergency on 08/09.06.2006.
2. The petitioner while working as S.D.M., Sirohi, fell ill at Sirohi on 12.05.2006 and was admitted in the local Government Hospital, Sirohi and after being treated therefor 3-4 days, and he was discharged on 15.05.2006 without any further reference to other Hospital. He went to his home town at Agra after taking duly sanctioned privilege leave and while at Agra with his family on 08/09.06.2006, he again suffered cardiac problem and on account of such emergency, the family members took him to AIIMS, New Delhi, where after Angiography, the petitioner was operated upon and two stent(s) were inserted and the total bill of Rs. 2,73,887/- was paid by him to AIIMS, New Delhi.
3. The claim for reimbursement of the petitioner under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1970 (Rules of 1970, for short) was not sanctioned, therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by way of present writ petition. The document (Annex.1) dated 12.09.2006 placed on record issued by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, stipulates that the petitioner should give an undertaking that only cost of two Stents of Rs. 75,000/- can be reimbursed to him and he will furnish the undertaking of the same as taking the said payment of Rs. 75,000/- in full settlement of the medical reimbursement bill. Such undertaking was not furnished by the petitioner and during the pendency of this writ petition, a coordinate bench of this Court passed an interim order after hearing both the counsels that the petitioner should be paid a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- as an interim measure towards the said treatment vide the order dated 19.03.2008, which amount is said to have been paid to the petitioner against the total bill of Rs. 2,73,887/- claimed by him.
4. Mr. Rajesh Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that, in an emergency, if the Government servant takes the treatment outside the State of Rajasthan, the Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules of 1970 govern the case and after initial treatment availed by the petitioner at Govt. Hospital, Sirohi, he was since not referred to any further advanced hospital for treatment, he went to Agra, to be with his family, his home-town, and when he again developed serious complications, and on account of of such an emergency, he was taken to AIIMS, New Delhi, which is undoubtedly a recognised hospital as per Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules of 1970. He also relied upon the recent judgment of this Court in the case of Jawahar Lal Bohra v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., SBCWP No. 6350 of 2005, decided on 26.03.2014 and in the case of Smt. Usha Mehta v. State of Rajasthan and ors., SBCWP No. 6401 of 2006, decided on 26.03.2014 . He, therefore, submitted that complete reimbursement of the AIIMS, New Delhi, expenditure incurred by the petitioner deserves to be reimbursed to the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Joshi, appearing for Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG, for the respondent- State, urged that since the treatment in the AIIMS, New Delhi, was taken without any reference of the local hospital of the State Government and, therefore, expenditure incurred outside the State of Rajasthan, cannot be reimbursed. He also supported the order/communication (Annex.1) dated 12.09.2006 for reimbursement of cost of two Stents inserted in the heart of the present petitioner at AIIMS Hospital at New Delhi. However, he could not explain as to why the entire expenditure of AIIMS, New Delhi, does not deserve to be reimbursed.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the rece
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
