OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who retired as Mandi Supervisor from Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board on 30.11.2009, has filed the present petition impugning the action of the respondents, whereby the claim for reimbursement of medical bill has been rejected on the ground that the treatment was taken from unapproved private hospital. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after retirement, the petitioner is residing at Panipat. On account of intolerable low backache on 11.9.2010, the petitioner rushed to Fortis Hospital, Noida, on account of their expertise in treatment of the disease. He was admitted, remained hospitalized from 12.9.2010 to 17.9.2010 and was operated upon. The petitioner claimed medical reimbursement of Rs. 3,04,158.25 for the aforesaid operation on 4.10.2010. The same was rejected on the ground that Fortis Hospital, Noida is neither a government hospital nor an approved hospital.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the treatment is taken from an unapproved hospital, reimbursement equivalent to the rates of PGIMER, Chandigarh is admissible as per policy in case of an emergency. As there was emergency, the petitioner got treatment from Fortis Hospital, Noida. He is entitled to reimbursement of expenses made on his treatment equivalent to the rates of PGIMER, Chandigarh. In support of his argument, reliance was placed upon a judgment of this Court in C.W.P. No. 10745 of 2007 Smt. Shail Bala Mittal v. The State of Haryana and others, decided on 19.2.2009.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in terms of the policy, a certificate is required from the Head of the Department, who is competent to certify the emergency in consultation with the concerned civil surgeon. In the present case, Head of the Department has not certified this to be a case of emergency, hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief, prayed for.