CHHABILAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 9.2.2015 passed by the respondent No.3/Dean, S.S.Medical College, Rewa whereby the petitioner's claim for reimbursement of Rs.4,23,581/- in the Metro Hospital, New Delhi has been rejected on the ground that no permission for the said treatment was obtained by the petitioner and also that the said hospital is also not authorized by the State of Madhya Pradesh.

(2.) In brief the facts of the case are that the petitioner retired from the post of Assistant Teacher on attaining the age of superannuation on 2.5.2012 and while he was in service he was suffering from cardiac problem since 2004 and was also being treated for the same. On 28.9.2010 he also obtained the permission to get treatment out of Rewa which was also accorded to him by the Medical Board so that he can take treatment at Bhopal. The case of the petitioner is that although he was getting the treatment at Bhopal but on account of the emergency which arose with respect to his heart problem he was rushed to Metro Hospital, New Delhi for further check up and was admitted on 27.2.2012 where he was advised to undergo emergency operation immediately so that his life can be saved. He was advised for AICD implantation immediately as the problem was serious. The aforesaid implantation was done on 5.3.2012 for which he had no time to seek prior permission. He was discharged from the hospital on 9.3.2012 and according to him a total expenditure of Rs.6,23,581/- was incurred by him in the aforesaid treatment. It is further stated that out of aforesaid amount, a sum of Rs.2 lakhs has already been received by him from the Insurance Company, however for the remaining amount of Rs.4,23,581/- he submitted the bills for reimbursement to the Principal, Govt. Martand Middle School, Rewa but the same was rejected by the impugned order dated 9.2.2015, as the respondents refused to grant ex post facto sanction and rejected the bill on the ground that no prior permission was obtained by the petitioner and also that the said hospital was not authorized by the State Government.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court and has submitted that admittedly the petitioner was suffering from heart ailment and after facing an emergency for the immediate treatment he had to get himself treated at the Metro Hospital, New Delhi and such contingency was not anticipated by the petitioner himself and even if even he has been treated in a hospital not authorizedby the State Government still he is entitled for the same, as he had no control over it. Thus it is submitted that the impugned order be set aside and the respondents be directed to reimburse the amount of Rs.4,23,581/-. Counsel has also relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 336.