Directs For COVID Treatment At Non-Recognised Hospitals
When a Pandemic Makes Every Hospital the Nearest Lifeline
The
has ordered the reimbursement of medical expenses incurred at non-recognised hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic, holding that the denial of such claims on technical grounds
"
."
Justice Rekha Borana, presiding over a Single Bench, allowed a filed by Anupama Prasad, daughter of Late Dr. Jagdish Prasad Srivastava, a former Associate Professor of Zoology at the who superannuated in and passed away on after prolonged hospitalization in Delhi.
A ₹8.9 Lakh Claim and a 21-Day Rejection
The petitioner raised a claim of ₹8.9 lakh on , which was rejected by the University barely three weeks later. The respondent authorities cited three grounds: the absence of documentary evidence confirming the deceased was suffering from COVID-19 (records suggested admission to the Urology Department for a urinary stone and age-related ailments); the failure to show that treatment was unavailable within Rajasthan or that a referral was obtained from through the ; and the absence of an emergent situation warranting treatment at the nearest available facility.
Settled Precedents on Non-Recognised Hospitals
The Court anchored its reasoning in two established precedents. In
Rama Prasad Sharma v. State of Rajasthan
(2022), it was held:
"It is now a
that even in cases where the treatment of an employee has been taken in a
, the
has to be made at the rate that may be applicable for similar treatment in the
."
Similarly, the Division Bench in
State of Rajasthan v. Tikam Chand Maloo
(2018) affirmed that employees are entitled to reimbursement for treatment taken outside the state at during emergencies.
The Pandemic as the Ultimate Emergency
Writing for the Court, Justice Borana observed:
"It is an universally accepted fact that during unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic, the immediate availability of medical care was of paramount importance. It was the period when patients were compelled to seek treatment at the nearest available hospital, irrespective of the fact whether such hospital was recognised or outside State, owing to the then prevailing circumstances."
The Court further noted:
"The denial of reimbursement of the medical expenses by the respondent-Department on the ground of the treatment having been taken in a
and that there was no
,
."
Decision and Relief
The was allowed, with directions to reimburse the medical claim to the extent permissible under the , or the rules applicable to University employees. The reimbursement must be completed within four weeks of the order, carrying interest at 6 percent per annum.
The ruling reaffirms that the non-recognised status of a hospital is not a bar to and that extraordinary circumstances like a pandemic demand a of medical attendance rules.