STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS Vs. VEENA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in the present Regular Second Appeal is in regard to the payment of medical reimbursement of the respondent-plaintiff. Respondent-plaintiff was working as J.B.T Teacher and was availing her summer vacation at Delhi during June 1998. Due to her sudden illness, she was taken to reputed Vidya Sagar Institute of Mental Neuro Sciences Hospital, Nehru Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "Hospital"). The respondent-plaintiff was found to be having a brain tumour for which she was urgently operated upon on 16.6.1998 to save her life. She, thus, remained hospitalised from 15.6.1998 to 28.6.1998. She incurred total expenditure of Rs. 71,639/- on her treatment.

(2.) The pleadings would show that prior to taking the respondent-plaintiff to the hospital, she was taken to AIIMS, but was apprised by the doctors that there was long queue of the patients waiting for operations and it may take three months to operate her. In this background, she had got herself operated from the Hospital and accordingly made a claim for reimbursement of the cost, which was turned down. Ultimately, she filed a civil suit to claim the reimbursement of the cost. The Civil Court, however, decreed the amount as per AIIMS/PGI rates. The appellant-State had filed appeal against this order alleging that the judgment under decree passed by the Trial Court is contrary to the Government policy and instructions. Respondent-plaintiff filed cross objections in the appeal filed by the Government, claiming that she would be entitled to reimbursement of full amount of medical expenditure and not at AIIMS/PGI rates.

(3.) It appears that the appellant-State has mainly filed the appeal on the ground that the bills were not submitted within six months of completion of the treatment. The first Appellate Court, however, took a view that the restrictions imposed by the Trial Court were not justified and accordingly directed that the full amount spent by the respondent-plaintiff be reimbursed and dismissed the appeal filed by the State and allowed the cross-objections filed by the respondent-plaintiff. The State has accordingly filed this Regular Second Appeal.