OMBAI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who is the wife of Raj Pal Singh, who retired as Social Studies Master from the Education Department of Haryana has approached this court, claiming reimbursement of an amount of Rs.93,544.79/- for the treatment which the husband of the petitioner had incurred as a follow up medical treatment. He had taken treatment from the department of Raidotherapy & Oncology Linear Accelerator Centre S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur as an indoor patient. Thereafter, he had taken follow up treatment from S.K. Soni Hospital, at Jaipur from 11.10.2010 to 01.11.2010 as an outdoor patient. The claim of the petitioner, as far as the indoor patient is concerned amounting to Rs.1,88,124/- has been accepted and has been paid to her but the remaining amount of Rs.93,544.79/- has not been paid to her and stands rejected only on the ground that said medical expenses could not be reimbursed as the husband of the petitioner has taken treatment as an outdoor patient.

(2.) At this, counsel for the petitioner contends that the claim of the petitioner deserves to be accepted, in the light of the various judgments passed by this court. Reference has been made by the counsel to judgments passed by this Court in Renu Saigal Vs. State of Haryana, 1998 4 SCT 565, Kuldeep Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 2002 3 SCT 71 and a Division Bench judgment passed by this court in C. B. Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2003 1 SCT 316 to contend that this court had quashed the instructions of the Government of Haryana and had held that where the indoor treatment is followed up by outdoor treatment for chronic disease, the medical reimbursement of such bill cannot be said to be barred or not claimable only on the ground that fixed monthly medical allowance has been paid to such an employee. He at this stage, contends that the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the claim as made by the petitioner for reimbursement of the expenses of Rs.93,544.79/- as an outdoor patient by the husband of the petitioner should be released to her.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has submitted that the husband of the petitioner was being paid fixed medical allowances as per the Haryana Government instructions dated 27.01.2009 and since the said benefit was granted to the husband of the petitioner, he was not entitled to medical reimbursement of his expenses, which he had incurred as an outdoor patient. The entitlement of the husband of the petitioner for reimbursement of bills as an indoor patient stands accepted and had been released to the petitioner on the death of her husband. Since the claim of the petitioner is not covered by the Rules/instructions, the prayer made in the petition deserves to be rejected and the writ petition dismissed.