DAYA RANI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 23.12.2008 (Annexure-P-1) and order dated 5/9.3.2009 (Annexure-P-4) whereby the medical bill, which was submitted by her for reimbursement for the treatment which she had taken from a private hospital at Chandigarh, stands rejected on the ground that it was not an emergency treatment as certified by the Civil Surgeon, Panchkula and thus the claim was not covered under Policy Instructions dated 6.5.2005 (Annexure-P-5) issued by the Government of Haryana dealing with medical reimbursement.

(2.) Petitioner had been working as an Assistant with the respondents. On 4.5.2008, she suddenly feel acute pain in the lower abdomen and since it was a Sunday, she was taken to Kidney Centre, Sector-34, Chandigarh, where she was admitted and operated upon. On recovery from the ailment, she submitted a bill amounting to Rs.span 18,500.00 to the respondents for reimbursement on the ground that the operation was got done in an emergency and she did not have time to seek an approval as per the instructions for undergoing the treatment. The certificate issued by Kidney Centre, Sector-34, Chandigarh, from where she had got herself operated, declaring the surgery performed upon the petitioner was emergency, was also appended. The claim of the petitioner was considered by the respondents as per the instructions dated 6.5.2005 and the same was rejected on the ground that the Civil Surgeon, Panchkula has not considered the treatment taken by the petitioner from a private hospital at Chandigarh to be an emergency treatment. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has now approached this Court, claiming the reimbursement of the amount spent by her on her treatment.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner is governed by the Instructions dated 6.5.2005 issued by the Government of Haryana and if she is not entitled to full reimbursement, at least the rate at which PGI Chandigarh would have charged for the same treatment, be given to the petitioner. He admits that the treatment taken by petitioner from private hospital is not included in the list of approved hospitals.