VANITA SINGHAL Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for seeking relief of reimbursement of medical expenditure of Rs. 48,989/ -. The said expenditure was incurred by the petitioner in the treatment of her daughter.

(2.) PETITIONER is a medical officer. At the relevant time, she was posted in the District Hospital, Morena. The petitioner's daughter, a student of Queens College, Indore fell ill. The ailment was detected as "Dengu Fever". During said ailment, severe complications arose which resulted into complete heart block. In view of said emergent situation, the daughter of the petitioner was immediately admitted in CHL Apollo Hospital, Indore. In view of sudden ailment and emergency aforesaid, there was no scope of searching any hospital other than the hospital which was nearby and readily available. She was treated in intensive care unit by specialized Doctor. Petitioner's daughter was admitted in the month of September,2006 in the said hospital. Petitioner paid Rs. 48,989/ - for the said treatment to the hospital. Thereafter petitioner preferred an application for reimbursement of the said amount which is Annexure P/1. Same was forwarded to respondent No.3 vide letter dated 14.05.2007 (Annexure P/3). In column 4 of the said letter, it is mentioned that ailment of the petitioner was Dengu. Reason for rejection of claim was that CHL Apollo Hospital, Indore is authorized only for angioplasty with stunt. The respondents by communication dated 13.10.2008 (Annexure P/4) informed the petitioner that claim has been rejected. Petitioner submitted the representation Annexure P/5 on 28.02.2009. This representation went in vain. Shri Pawan Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court [ Dr. (Smt.) Kirti Saxena Vs. State of M.P. and Ors., 2014 2 MPHT 245) submits that action of respondents is bad in law.

(3.) SHRI Praveen Newaskar, Dy.G.A. for the State opposed the relief and relied on various paragraphs of the return. The return is based on same reason which is mentioned in Annexure P/3.