Back
2000 Supreme(Raj) 570
Rajasthan High Court
Honble DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, CJ. & RAJESH BALIA, J.
Shankerlal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
D.B. Civil Spl. Appeal No. 874 of 1999
Decided On : August 07, 2000
P.R. Singh, for Petitioner R.P. Dave, for Respondents
Headnote:Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1970, Rule 6 and 7, Constitution of India Art. 21 – Reimbursement of Medical expenses – Petitioner was availing leave at Delhi – His wife developed sudden cardiac trouble – Undergone open heart surgery in Escort Heart Institute and Research Centre, Delhi – Operation failed – Died – Claimed for reimbursement of Rs. 2,06,860, the expenses incurred on treatment – Rejected on the ground that the procedure required under Rule 6 & 7 of the Rules was not followed – Filed Writ Petition – Dismissed – Special Appeal – Held – Patient was already outside the state – Obtaining Certificates for availing treatment out side the State and non availability of treatment in the State under Rule 6 and 7 were not required – Certificate under Rule 7 is required only when the patient is required to go out side the State for treatment – Neither All India Institute of Medical Science, any other Govt. Hospital at Delhi could verify that the treatment for the disease suffered by the patient was not available in Rajasthan as they are not the Incharge of Medical facilities rendered in the State – Escort Hospital has been recognised by the State of Rajasthan as referral Hospital for Govt. employees – Preserve health and obtain medical aid in furtherance of self preservation is part of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution – Entitled to reimbursement – Directed the respondents to reimburse the expenditure incurred. (Paras 15 to 24, 32 to 34)
(2). The brief facts of the case are: that the petitioner- appellant at the relevant time was working as Upper Division Clerk in the Office of District Transport Officer, Hanumanagarh. After applying four days leave, he went to Delhi on 18.6.1996 alongwith his wife for some domestic work. This fact was stated in his leave application while in Delhi that on 19.6.1996, the petitioners wife developed some cardiac trouble and, therefore, she was taken to Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, Delhi, an institution which is recognised for treatment of complicated heart ailments by the State of Rajasthan where she was admitted in Emergency with a diagnosis of DCM LBBB and (gross) congestive cardiac failure and EF 20%. She was stablized and her cardiac cath study, was performed and was advised for her open heart surgery costing approximately Rs. 2 Lakhs. The petitioner-appellant moved an application from Delhi on the next day informing the concerned authorities that due to sudden cardiac problem, his wife has been admitted to Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, Delhi with complete details of treatment. He also moved an application for necessary sanction of an advance payment of Rs. 2 Lacs for medical treatment of his wife from Delhi on 25.6.1996 but the same was not granted to him. Since the health condition of petitioners wife was deteriorating day by day and therefore, her open heart surgery was performed on 9.7.1996 and the total expenditure on medicines and operation came to Rs. 2,06,860/-. Unfortunately the operation of the petitioners wife failed and she died on 12.7.1996 in the Hospital itself.
(3). Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application before the concerned authorities for reimbursement of expenses incurred for the medical treatment of his wife at Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, Delhi alongwith the Certificate (Annex.7) dated 5.7.1996 issued by the Executive Director, Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, New-Delhi certifying that the wife of the petitioner was admitted to the Emergency Room on 19.6.1996 in the state of a gross congestive cardiac failure and subsequent evaluation based on echocardiagraphic and coronary angiography revealed `Diolated Cardiomyopathy and therefore, she was placed for `Reduction Ventriculoplasty a newly established surgical procedure which may help in improving her clinical status and ejection fraction.
(4). However, the petitioners claim for reimbursement of Rs. 2,06,860/- was rejected vide Order (Annexure/10). Only ground disclosed in the communication is that since the petitioner has not got the treatment of his wife in a Government Hospital, the expenses incurred by him on the treatment of his wife cannot be reimbursed. Aggrieved with the refusal to reimburse the expenses incurred on treatment of his wife vide (Annex.10), the petitioner-appellant filed the aforesaid writ petition before this Court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondents for reimbursement of Rs. 2,06,860/-, which was spent by him on the treatment of his wife.
(5). A reply to the show cause notice was filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it was contended that the petitioner ought to have contacted the Government Hospital either of the Central Government or of the State Government before availing of treatment in Escorts Heart and Research Centre, New-Delhi. It was submitted that as per Rule 7(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1970 (for short `the Rules), the Govt. employee or his family member will have to obtain the certificate that no treatment of the disease is available in the State. Under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 7 list of Hospitals outside the State is given and as per Sub-Rule (4), the reimbursement of
