V. MOHINI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a patient of chronic Ulcerative Colitis and was constantly under treatment for the same and the claim in the petition is for re-imbursement of medical expenses incurred in an un-approved hospital.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, states that the petitioner is not seeking to claim any re-imbursement for the treatment got in Inscol Hospital since no procedure was carried out there. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner came to know of some better surgical technique available at Satguru Partap Singh Apollo Hospital, Ludhiana (which is an un-approved hospital), where her surgery was conducted in two phases. She got first phase of the surgery conducted and was to report back after few months. During this period, as per the petitioner, she complained of high fever, vomiting, chest pain etc. and was admitted to Inscol Hospital, Chandigarh where she was conservatively treated and discharged and thereafter she went for second phase of the surgery which was also conducted upon her. The counsel has argued that the Civil Surgeon did not certify the procedure which the petitioner had undergone at Ludhiana as an emergency and consequently, the respondent-State of Haryana refused to consider the case of the petitioner for medical re-imbursement since as per them, no emergency procedure had been carried out at an un-approved hospital. He has further argued that the petitioner seeks medical re-imbursement at PGI rates.

(3.) Counsel for the respondents has argued that since the medical reimbursement policy does not envisage grant of any reimbursement in the event of treatment taken from an un-approved hospital except in the case of emergency as certified by Civil Surgeon, the petitioner is not entitled to any payment.