M. Venugopal, J.

1. The Appellants/Respondents have preferred the present Writ Appeal, as 'Aggrieved Persons', against the order, dated 27.02.2017 in W.P.(MD) No.125 of 2017, passed by the Learned Single Judge.

2. The Learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order in W.P.(MD)No.125 of 2017 filed by the Respondent (as Writ Petitioner) at paragraph Nos.7 and 8, had observed the following:-

"7. Admittedly, the Petitioner has taken treatment in a non-network Hospital on account of emergent situation, which ultimately resulted in rejection of her claim. Subsequently, the High Level Committee has also rejected the claim of the Petitioner. It is not in dispute that if the claim is approved, the Petitioner would be paid the medical benefits based on Tamil Nadu Medical Attendance Rules (in short “the Rules”). The benefit of scheme, namely, the contract cannot be rewritten and it is only the Government to pay the amount incurred by the Petitioner/Employee/ patient/pensioner irrespective of constitution of the Committee. It is pertinent to mention here that the patient cannot search for network Hospital for getting admitted or for taking treatment during emergency.

8. This Court