2014 Supreme(Raj) 1631
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Vineet Kothari, J.
Tikam Chand Maloo - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6346 of 2013.
Decided On : 30-07-2014
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Tikam Chand Maloo, Advocate.
A government servant is entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses incurred outside the state in an emergency, even if the treatment is received at a private hospital, provided that the hospital is a recognized hospital under the Rules.
Headnote:
MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT - RAJASTHAN CIVIL SERVICES (MEDICAL ATTENDANCE) RULES, 2008 - RULES 6 AND 7 - REIMBURSEMENT OF MEDICAL EXPENSES INCURRED BY GOVERNMENT SERVANT FOR TREATMENT OUTSIDE STATE IN EMERGENCY - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a government employee, was diagnosed with cancer and incurred medical expenses of Rs. 1,70,270/- at a private hospital in Ahmedabad. He sought reimbursement from the respondents under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2008, but was only reimbursed Rs. 6,303.04.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was entitled to reimbursement of the full amount of his medical expenses, as he had undergone treatment in an emergency outside the state and the hospital where he received treatment was a recognized hospital under the Rules.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to reimbursement of his medical expenses incurred outside the state in an emergency.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Rules 6 and 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2008, and held that a government servant is entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses incurred outside the state in an emergency, even if the treatment is received at a private hospital, provided that the hospital is a recognized hospital under the Rules.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to reimburse the petitioner the full amount of his medical expenses.
JUDGMENT
1. - The petitioner, Mr. Tikam Chand Maloo, is present-in-person. Nobody is present on behalf of the respondents since the lawyers are observing strike.
2. In view of the urgency shown, heard the petitioner, who is present-in-person and perused the record.
3. The petitioner is working as a Lower Division Clerk with the respondent-Public Health & Engineering Department, Jodhpur. He unfortunately diagnosed as suffering from Cancer of mouth in the year 2011 when he was with his family at Ahmedabad. He was required to be hospitalised there in HCG Medi-Surge Hospital at Ahmedabad where for the treatment of the said dreaded disease Cancer, he incurred an expenditure to the tune of Rs. 1,70,270/-. Thereafter, some treatment was also given to him upon his return back to the State of Rajasthan at Sawai Man Singh ('SMS') Hospital, Jaipur for which, the medical bills of SMS Hospital, Jaipur were duly reimbursed to the petitioner as per the Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2008 applicable to the Government servants. However, no reimbursement for the aforesaid sum of Rs. 1,70,270/- incurred by the petitioner at Ahmedabad has been given by the respondents and by the impugned order dated 19.03.2013 (Annex. R/4), only a sum of Rs. 6,303.04 has been sanctioned as against the medical bills to the tune of Rs. 1,70,270/- furnished by the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. The petitioner appearing in person submitted that no reason has been assigned for reimbursement of only a small portion of sum of Rs. 6,303.04 as against the medical bills to the tune of Rs. 1,70,270/- by the respondent-State incurred by him at Ahmedabad for hospitalisation, chemotherapy etc. costs at HCG Medi-Surge Hospital, Ahmedabad. The furnishing of the verified medical bills before the respondents is not in dispute in the reply filed by the respondents and a copy of the same has also been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure-4 collectively by which letter dated 03.08.2012, the Chief Engineer (Project) even recommended his case but no reason has been assigned by the respondent-Chief Engineer (Administration) and Technical Member of the respondent Department for sanctioning the aforesaid sum of Rs. 6,303.04 only as against the medical bills furnished by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 1,70,270/- for treatment at Ahmedabad.
5. This Court is of the opinion that as per the Rules of 2008, in an emergency, if the petitioner leaves the Headquarters without reference by the Medical Authorities outside the State of Rajasthan and is admitted there, even in a private hospital, the respondent-State is bound to reimburse the expenditure incurred by the petitioner for his treatment outside the State of Rajasthan in such emergency.
6. This Court in the case of Jawahar Lal Bohra v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No. 6350/2005, decided on 26.03.2014) and in the case of Smt. Usha Mehta v. State of Rajasthan and ors. (SBCWP No. 6401/2006, decided on 26.03.2014) has held that reimbursement of the medical expenditure incurred by the petitioner in such circumstances deserve to be reimbursed to the petitioner.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the recent judgment of this Court in the cases of Jawahar Lal Bohra (supra) and Smt. Usha Mehta (supra), the reimbursement of the balance amount in the present case of the petitioner for the treatment of his Cancer ailment at HCG Medi-Surge Hospital, Ahmedabad, deserves to be made to the present petitioner. This Court in the case of Jawahar Lal Bohra (supra) has held as under:-
"18. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that since the Asian Heart Institute, Mumbai was not the recognised hospital by the State Government, and therefore, the claim of the petitioner could not be accepted, is also a contention not worthy of acceptance. Firstly, as aforesaid the limited number of hospitals outside the State of
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
