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.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J.

1. In the present petition, the claim of the petitioner is that though, he is entitled for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him upon undergoing a liver transplantation/surgery but the said benefit has not been extended to him by the respondents and that too without any valid justification.

2. The petitioner, who has retired from the post of Chief Account Officer was suffering from liver ailment and after getting diagnosed he was advised to undergo liver transplantation keeping in view the ailment being suffered by him. Petitioner has availed the medical facilities from various hospitals and ultimately keeping in view the fact that no donor was available in the North India, the petitioner got registered himself in Manipal hospital, Bengaluru, which is a Super Specialty hospital and ultimately he was operated upon for the liver transplantation on 10.06.2016. In the said treatment, which was emergent in nature, the petitioner remained admitted in hospital for a period of more than two weeks and had incurred expenses of a total amount of Rs.24 lacs. The said amount was paid by the petitioner from his own pocket and, thereafter, he raised a medical claim for reimbursement of the said amount. Initially, the respondents did not reimburse the medical claim of the petitioner on the ground that no package was provided for undergoing liver transplantation but during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents reimbursed a sum of Rs.10 lacs to the petitioner out of the total amount of Rs.24 lacs incurred on medical treatment on the ground that had the petitioner undertaken the treatment from the PGIMER, Chandigarh, he would have spent an amount of Rs.10 lacs for the said medical treatment, which amount was reimbursed to him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ground being raised by the respondents to reimburse a sum of Rs.10 lacs is that the said treatment/surgery was available at PGIMER, Chandigarh and the same would have costed Rs.10 lacs, if undertaken from there, whereas the said treatment/surgery is not available in the PGIMER, Chandigarh and hence, reimbursing the amount which would have incurred by the petitioner in case the treatment would have taken from the PGIMER, Chandigarh is without any basis.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the settled principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in CWP-694-2015 titled as Shiva Kant Jha vs. Union of India, decided on 13.04.2018, once, it is a undisputed fact that the petitioner had undertaken the treatment, which treatment was emergent in nature, the total amount incurred and claimed by the petitioner should be reimbursed.

5. Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed reply and thereafter an affidavit has also been filed by Mithilesh Gupta, Flying Squad Officer, O/o Director General, Treasuries and Accounts Department, Haryana Chandigarh, wherein it has been mentioned that Government of Haryana had issued the guidelines/policy dated 06.05.2005 regarding medical reimbursement according to which, reimbursement for the treatment taken in an emergency in an unapproved hospital will be allowed at PGIMER, Chandigarh rates with the approval of the Finance department hence, PGIMER, Chandigarh rates has been worked out in the case of the petitioner and a sum of Rs.10 lacs has been reimbursed to the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that once a particular sum has been worked out and reimbursed, which is equal to the amount which petitioner would have incurred if the petitioner would have undertaken the treatment from PGIMER, Chandigarh, no further claim can be raised by the petitioner and the present petition has been rendered infructuous.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

8. It is a conceded position that though, initially the medical claim of the petitioner for reimbursement was no