RAJESH KUMAR MALIK Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The writ petitioner prays for quashing of order (Annexure P-4) by which reimbursement of medical bills of the petitioner have been denied. The petitioner makes a further prayer for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reimburse his medical claims in relation to expenditure incurred by him on account of the treatment of his wife. From the pleadings made, it is apparent that the petitioner was constrained to get his wife interned in the Bharat Hospital, Sonepat for delivery. Subsequent to medical and/or tests, the doctors of the said hospital were of the opinion that the patient needed to be shifted to the General Government Hospital at Sonepat, whereupon, she was admitted in that hospital for further treatment. Subsequently, it appears that pursuant to further examinations and/or tests conducted by the doctors of the said hospital, the petitioner's wife was referred to St. Stephen's Hospital at Delhi on account of the deteriorating condition of the petitioner's wife. Thereafter, she was admitted to the St. Stephen's Hospital at Delhi, where she delivered a baby after having undergone surgery. According to the petitioner, his wife got admitted in that hospital on 10.1.2001 and was discharged on 20.1.2001, and during this period she had to undergo surgery. In the process, heavy expenses had to be incurred whereafter the petitioner filed an application before the respondent No. 3 on 22.3.2001 attaching therewith details of bills of medicines and other expenses along with other relevant documents for reimbursement of medical charges. The petitioner asserts that his case was duly recommended by respondent Nos. 3 to 5 whereafter the case was forwarded to the respondent No. 2 but the respondent No. 2 raised certain objections and sent the file back for compliance and further submission after removal of the discrepancies vide letter dated 1.6.2001. Upon receipt of the file back from the respondent No. 2, the petitioner removed the objections pointed out by the respondent No. 2 and resubmitted the same vide application dated 19.10.2001. Thereafter the same was forwarded by the respondent No. 5. The respondent No. 3 made out a ground that the hospital, namely, St. Stephen's Hospital at Delhi was not recognised by the Government of Haryana and hence the petitioner was not entitled for reimbursement of medical claims vide order as contained in Annexure P-4. According to the petitioner, the aforementioned order is irrational and illegal. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, wherein they have stated that the petitioner had not taken permission from the Civil Surgeon, Sonepat or from the Director General Health Services, Haryana to shift the patient to St. Stephen's Hospital at Delhi. They have further stated that the petitioner's wife, was in fact, admitted in the Civil Hospital at Sonepat on 2.12.2000 and on the same day, was shifted to PGI, Rohtak, but at the request of the petitioner, the patient was shifted to St. Stephen's Hospital at Delhi. They have further stated that it is wrong to say that facilities for treatment of the Petitioner's wife were not available either at the Civil Hospital at Sonepat or PGI, Rohtak, and that reference to St. Stephen's Hospital, Delhi was exclusively made on the request of the petitioner.

(3.) A civil miscellaneous application bearing No. 28118 of 2003 has been filed by the petitioner, wherein it has been asserted that a case similar in nature bearing Civil Writ Petition No. 423 of 2002 has been decided by a Division Bench, and that, the learned counsel submits, that the petitioner would be satisfied if directions similar in nature to those passed in that case are also made and/or applied in the facts and circumstances of this case.