HARINDER PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is presently working as Homeopathic Medical Officer in Govt. Homeopathic Dispensary, Civil Hospital, Phillaur, Distt. Jalandhar, 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 though treatment of Multifocal Motor Neurology (MMN) was available in PGI, Chandigarh (Annexure P-15) but still the petitioner got the same from abroad. Rejection letter (Annexure P-16) has also been challenged. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was suffering from neurological disorder. He was getting treatment from CMC Hospital, Ludhiana but did not feel any improvement in his health. Dr. Jai Raj D. Pandian, Professor and Head of Department of Neurology, CMC Hospital, Ludhiana referred his case to Neurologist in Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia. The petitioner claimed prior approval for reimbursement to get treatment from the said hospital but late posting of letter by the official resulted in late receipt thereof (Annexure P-7) hence, the petitioner could not appear before the Board on 4.1.2012. Further the petitioner vide letter dated 12.1.2012 again requested to consider his case immediately because of his appointment at Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia was from 6.2.2012 to 10.2.2012. But no action was taken. The petitioner was admitted in Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia during the aforesaid period and again from 8.3.2012 to 9.3.2012 for treatment. The petitioner claimed medical reimbursement of Rs. 10,30,238/- for the aforesaid treatment. The same was rejected on the ground that the treatment for multifocal motor neurology is available in PGI, Chandigarh.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Ujaggar Kaur Bakshi v. State of Punjab and others, 2004 2 SCT 857 stated that treatment in private hospitals is permissible subject to reimbursement being allowed at the rates fixed by Director, Health and Family Welfare. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement at least to that extent as the treatment of the petitioner as such is not disputed.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was suffering from spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) for which treatment was being taken from CMC, Ludhiana. The Board constituted for checking the possibilities of treatment abroad concluded that SMA does not have any specific treatment and the treatment of MMN is also available at PGI, Chandigarh. Hence, there was no need to refer the petitioner abroad for treatment. Further sanction for reimbursement for medical expenses incurred by the petitioner for getting treatment abroad could not be allowed.