DALIP RAI NAYYAR Vs. CHIEF SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court claiming the reimbursement of his medical bills, which expenses he incurred while getting treatment from Fortis Hospital, Mohali, which is a Haryana Government Panelled Hospital. He being a heart patient takes treatment from there and remained admitted there as an indoor patient in January, 2008 because of shortage of sodium chloride/phosphates and again in February, 2008, for prostrate operation because of urine trouble. He had earlier been admitted in Fortis Hospital when he suffered a massive heart attack on 26.08.2006 for which treatment is continuing at the Fortis Hospital as an outdoor patient. Petitioner is a widower and has only one daughter who came to him while he was admitted in the Fortis Hospital. She resides in Delhi and because of the indifferent health of her husband, she had to go back to Delhi where she is also working and is on deputation to Delhi Administration w.e.f. 01.03.2003. Petitioner was not in a good financial position to engage a nurse to take care of him in his house at Chandigarh and faced with this situation, he had to shift to his daughter's house at Delhi because of which, he could not submit his claim within a period of six months. As a matter of fact, after complete recovery, he submitted his medical bills on 24.07.2009 (Annexure P-1A). The claim of the petitioner has not been considered and rather rejected on the ground that the same has been submitted by the petitioner after an inordinate delay and the claim is barred by the instructions dated 11.12.2003 (Annexure P-5). The orders dated 2/3.3.2010 and 25.05.2010 rejecting the claim of the petitioner are appended as Annexures P-2 and P-4. Petitioners, therefore, faced with this situation, approached this Court by way of the present writ petition claiming the benefit that because of the circumstances beyond his control, he could not submit the bills within the time stipulated under the instructions dated 11.12.2003. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the instructions dated 11.12.2003 (Annexure P-5) do not bar the claim merely on the ground that it is submitted beyond the period of 12 months. The instructions themselves provide for an exception to be carved out in circumstances which genuinely indicate difficulties faced by a claimant and under these instructions, the claim of the petitioner clearly falls and thus, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner on the basis of it being time barred cannot be accepted. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in Baljinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, 2008 5 SLR 16, to contend that a technical objection with regard to the limitation cannot be taken as a ground to reject a genuine claim when the same has not been said to be a bogus one. He, accordingly, prays that the present writ petition be allowed.

(2.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that there is an inordinate delay in submitting the bills by the petitioner. As a matter of fact, petitioner has submitted the bills after a period of almost one year and 4 months and as per the instructions dated 11.12.2003, the claim of the petitioner could not be accepted and has rightly been rejected.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.