Government employees are entitled to medical reimbursement for necessary treatments, regardless of hospital empanelment, emphasizing urgency and proper documentation.

JUDGMENT :

Atul Sreedharan, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant- the Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi and Station Director, Radio Kashmir, Jammu. They are aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 10.07.2018, whereby, the medical reimbursement claim of the respondent herein was allowed by the learned Single Judge.

The brief facts of the case will be summarized as follows:

2. The respondent-herein was serving as Programmer Executive in the Prasar Bharti (Broadcasting Corporation of India) and superannuated on 28.02.2011. The undisputed fact is that on 03.10.2006, he was on active duty and was recording an interview of one Prof. K.L Bhatia when he suffered a brain haemorrhage in the studio of Radio Kashmir, Jammu. He was immediately shifted to the Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu and looking to his critical condition and lack of proper medical facilities to treat the patients of brain haemorrhage, the doctors in the Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu referred the petitioner for specialised treatment in the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGI), Chandigarh, where the petitioner remained under treatment from 04.10.2006 to 18.10.2006. Upon discharge he returned to Jammu but developed some post operational complications. The doctors at PGI, Chandigarh advised immediate surgery of the petitioner in Jammu through renowned neurosurgeon, Dr. Haroon Salaria, and got himself admitted in a private Nursing Home (Langer Nursing Home) at Trikuta Nagar, Jammu, where he was operated for “shunt operation for post operational hydrocephalus”. After being cured, the petitioner lodged a reimbursement claim for medical expenses. As regards the expenses incurred by him at PGI Chandigarh to the extent of Rs.65,326/-, the same has been reimbursed, while his travel allowance claim of Rs.11,400/- which was claimed by the respondent in his medical claim was not sanctioned and was kept pending for approval of the competent authority.

3. The main issue relates to the expenses incurred by the petitioner-respondent herein on the private nursing home where he was already operated by Dr. Haroon Salaria, which were not reimbursed. The amount that was directed to be reimbursed by the learned Single Bench was Rs.46,945.32/- which was incurred by the respondent on account of surgery conducted at private nursing home (Langer Nursing Home). The learned Single Bench also held that he was entitled to Rs.8790/- being the balance of the travelling allowance and that the same should have been paid within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of the order. It is the amount of Rs.46,945.32/- which is being challenged in this LPA.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order suffers from perversity as the standards/parameters applied by the learned Single Bench while allowing the petition filed by the respondent was incorrect. He has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon by the learned Single Bench in Shiva Kant Jha v. Union of India,AIR 2018 SC 1975 whereby the similar case, where the patient had got himself treated at a Private Nursing Home and was denied the reimbursement, the Supreme Court held in Paragraph No. 13, which may be summarized as follows that where a government employee during his life time or after superannuation is entitled to certain medical facilities/benefits, no limits can be set on that right.

5. The Supreme Court also observed that it is acceptable to common sense that how a patient should be treated vests only with the doctor and that little scope is left with the patient or his relative to decide the manner in which the ailment should be treated.

6. It is necessary to mention here that in that case, the State was aggrieved by the fact that the treatment sought by the patient was in a hospital which was not enlisted with the CGHS. The Supreme