HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Kuldeep Mathur, J.
Rajkumar Saraf – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 177/2018
Decided On : 19-09-2022
reimbursement - medical expenses - Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013 - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - State of Rajasthan v. Mahesh Kumar Sharma (2011) 4 SCC 257
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought reimbursement for expenses incurred in a liver transplant surgery. The respondent partially accepted the claim, leading to the petitioner filing a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's treatment was genuine and in line with medical protocol. It noted the ceiling rates for reimbursement for liver transplant surgery prescribed by the State Government and the right to self-preservation of life as a necessary concomitant of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The main issue was the extent of reimbursement for the petitioner's medical expenses and whether the ceiling rates prescribed by the State Government should be applied.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the government can limit medical facilities based on financial resources and rules, it would be unjust to deny reimbursement as per the prescribed ceiling rates when the treatment is found to be valid.
Final Decision: The writ petition was partly allowed, directing the respondents to pay the balance amount of the prescribed package rate for liver transplant surgery within three months, failing which, interest would be applicable.
JUDGMENT
Kuldeep Mathur, J. - By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for reimbursement of expenses qua the Liver Transplant Surgery involving deceased liver donor undergone by him.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was suffering from chronic liver cirrhosis and was taken to SMS Hospital, Jaipur; there the petitioner was advised and referred by the doctors to AIIMS, New Delhi. The doctors at AIIMS, New Delhi advised the petitioner to get operated at Apollo Hospital, Chennai due to non availability of treatment. The petitioner in dire need of liver transplant operation was operated on 21.04.2014 and discharged on 28.04.2014 from Apollo Hospital, Chennai. A sum ofRs.26,02,500/- was incurred as expenditure for the above-mentioned treatment/surgery. An application was submitted by the petitioner claiming medical reimbursement of expenses incurred qua the liver transplant surgery. The respondent-authorities vide order dated 29.05.2017, accepted the claim partially to the tune ofRs.6,00,000/-. The petitioner being aggrieved by partial acceptance of medical reimbursement claim, has preferred the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in an emergent condition, the petitioner was admitted in Apollo Hospital, Chennai due to non-availability of treatment in the parent state therefore, petitioner is entitled to the entire reimbursement amount claimed. Counsel vehemently submitted that denial of full reimbursement of medical bills is also discriminatory as complete reimbursement has been made in favour of employees who have undergone similar specialised treatment.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the application submitted by the petitioner claiming reimbursement of expenses incurred qua the treatment was considered in consonance with the Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner has undergone liver transplant operation on 21.04.2014 and the State Government vide notification dated 30.04.2015 prescribed ceiling rates for reimbursement for Liver Transplant Surgery, therefore, a subsequent notification does not apply to the present case. Counsel urged that the order dated 29.05.2017, accepting partial claim of the petitioner should not be interfered with.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. Indisputably, the petitioner was a diagnosed patient of HCV related de-compensated chronic liver disease, Genotype IIIa child B, MELD-15. The petitioner was being treated at SMS, Jaipur where the doctors referred him to AIIMS, New Delhi. The facility of Liver Transplant Surgery at the relevant time was neither available in SMS Hospital, Jaipur nor in AIIMS, New Delhi, because of which the petitioner had to get operated at Apollo Hospital, Chennai. Subsequently, he underwent 'Liver Transplant Surgery' on 21.04.2014.
7. The Medical Board constituted by the respondents to assess genuineness of treatment after examining petitioner vide its report dated 13.01.2016 stated that the treatment taken by the petitioner was as per medical protocol, which is genuine. It was recommended that reimbursement in favour of petitioner may be made as per the Government Rules. While the application submitted by the petitioner for reimbursement of the medical bills was pending, the Finance Department issued an order dated 30.04.2015 bearing No. F.(2)FD(Rules)/2013 Pt-II, whereby in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 20 of RCS (MA) Rules, 2013 and as per the decision of the Health Benefit Empowerment Committee, the State Government decided following ceiling rates of reimbursement for 'Liver Transplant Surgery' in government and approved private hospitals in the State and in referral hospitals:-
"(a) The package rate for Liver Transplantation surgery involving live liver donor shall be as follows:
Rs. 11,50,000/- (Rupees Eleven lakh fifty thousand only) + pr
State of Rajasthan v. Mahesh Kumar Sharma reported in (2011) 4 SCC 257
The right to self-preservation of life as a necessary concomitant of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the application of prescribed ceiling rates for reimbursement ....
The factum of treatment in emergent situations should be the basis for reimbursement, not the rates from an approved hospital where the required treatment was not available.
Government employees are entitled to medical reimbursement for treatment in non-recognized hospitals at applicable rates for similar treatments in recognized hospitals.
The denial of medical reimbursement for a heart transplant due to CGHS guidelines was unconstitutional, emphasizing individual health rights in critical situations.
The main legal point established is that the department is obligated to reimburse the amount for medical treatment undertaken in a private or unrecognized hospital, to the extent permissible under th....
Right to health is a fundamental right, and government employees are entitled to full reimbursement for medical expenses incurred, irrespective of outdated reimbursement policies.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.