H C DHAWAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner retired as Engineer-in-Chief (Irrigation Department, Haryana) in July, 1983. In March, 1986 the petitioner developed high temperature which did not come down despite the prescriptions of various antibiotics and other strong medicines. He was an outdoor patient in PGI and got various tests conducted as desired by the PGI authorities. These tests did not show any infection or other detectable disease. The petitioner was suspected to be suffering from cancer. Mr. Nehra informs at the time of arguments that he actually died of cancer, PGI authorities did not have any cat scan facility. They, therefore, referred the petitioner for cat scanning at Chandigarh Neurological Research Centre. The cat scan test was performed on 15.4.1986. Not satisfied with the aforesaid cat scan, the PGI doctors desired that the cat scanning be got done from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi. The petitioner therefore, got the cat scanning done at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi on 24th April, 1986. The aforesaid hospital also advised that the cat scanning should be done again after 10 weeks. In the petition, it has been claimed by the petitioner that at the relevant time the claim for medical reimbursement of medical expenses was covered under Rule 1(17) of the Statutory Rules. These averments are however, denied by the respondents. They have stated that the case for reimbursement of medical expenses of the petitioner was to be examined under instructions dated 27.5.1968, Annexure R-1.

(2.) In view of the above, Mr. Nehra does not press the argument that the claim of the petitioner for reimbursement on medial expenses had to be decided under any statutory rules. He has, however, submitted that even under the instructions dated 27.5.1968 the petitioner was fully entitled to the expenses incurred for the medical treatment, even as an OPD patient.

(3.) On the other hand, it is submitted by Mr. Sharma that in view of Annexure R-2 the petitioner was not entitled to any reimbursement. He has not placed on the record any prescription or reference made by the PGI authority either to the Chandigarh Neurological Centre or to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi for cat scanning. That being so, even, if the petitioner is entitled to get reimbursement of expenses incurred on medical treatment as an outdoor patient, no case is made out in the facts and circumstances of the case. Furthermore, it is submitted that even if it is held that the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses still the same is limited only to the amount of Rs. 150 per month in lump sum with effect from the financial year 1986-87.