AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.

1. The prayer in the present Civil Writ Petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for directing the respondents to sanction and make full medical reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the petitioner for his liver transplant.

2. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner was in a life and death situation when he was admitted to Medanta Medicity Hospital, Gurugram on 08.10.2017 for the treatment of Cryptogenic Chronic Liver Disease, a type of Cancer, as he had to undergo liver transplant. The petitioner was discharged from hospital on 23.10.2017 and a total sum of Rs.21,17,513/- was incurred towards treatment. This treatment was neither available in AIIMS, Delhi nor in any Government Hospital in the State of Punjab. All documents including copy of Essentiality Certificate dated 25.10.2017 (Annexure P-2 and P-3) were submitted by him to the respondent-Department. He places reliance on a judgment of this Court passed in CWP-5714-2016 titled as Hari Chand vs. State of Punjab and 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 15-08-2024 07:01:55 :::

others , decided on 06.01.2016 (Annexure P-8) on similar facts and circumstances as that of the present case, which was subsequently followed in CWP-20662-2016 titled as Jagwant Kumar Sharma vs. State of Punjab and others , decided on

20.12.2017, Annexure P-7. The relevant para of Hari Chand (supra) read thus:- “7. Claims for medical reimbursement are processed under the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 (the “rules”) which right is available to both Punjab Government employees and its pensioners. Treatment in hospitals other than in Government hospitals have been recognized by the rules. The rules clarify that treatment taken from a private hospital would be subject to the condition that an undertaking would be given by the employee/pensioner for reimbursement to be claimed as per rates fixed by the Director Health and Family Welfare, Punjab and as per the advise issued by the technical committee constituted by the Director Health to finalize the admissible rates. An ex post facto sanction of the amount paid is all that the Government can grant to the petitioner for treatment. This is the sum total of the defence in the counter-affidavit dated July 21, 2014.

xx xx xx

9. Dr. Bhagmal has not been able to lay his finger on any rule to the contrary which would oust the rights of the petitioner under the 1940 Rules, which are the governing law on medical reimbursement in the State of Punjab. Doubts, if any, have been dispelled by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Ram Lubhaya Bagga, (1998) 4 SCC 117. The Supreme Court considered the issue of medical reimbursement falling in Articles 21 & 47 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court considered the Punjab policy dated February 13, 1995 and recognized the right of the State to change its policy from time to time under changing circumstances. The Court held that the policy was not open to challenge; the financial aspect is a relevant consideration, every fundamental right is to be construed within permissible reasonable restrictions; if certain expenses are excluded in the policy, then a claim would not lie for reimbursement of expenses incurred in private hospitals. The Supreme Court recognized the right of Bagga for full medical reimbursement incurred in undergoing heart surgery at Escorts Hospital, New Delhi at the rates prescribed by AIIMS but not the full expenditure incurred at Escorts. On point of fact, the treatment undergone by Bagga was available at AIIMS, New Delhi but the patient could not be taken to AIIMS as there was a strike and hospital facilities were not available. That is how Bagga took the emergency treatment at Escorts to save his life. The relevant passage which is of moment in the present case is in para.33 of the judgment. Para.33 reads as follows:-

2 of 4 ::: Downloade