SATPAL GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a retired District Food and Supplies Officer, Department of Food and Supplies, Haryana. He is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not reimbursing the bill medical in the sum of Rs. 16,786/- which amount he had spent at Hero DMC Heart Institute, Ludhiana for angiography during his admission from 28.12.2001 to 2.1.2002 prior to under going angiography at Escorts Heart Institute, New Delhi. His claim has been rejected on the ground that he had taken the treatment at a private hospital. The validity of order dated 24.5.2002 (Annexure P-2) has been called into question by virtue of which it has been informed to the petitioner that the expenditure incurred by him on his treatment at Hero DMC Heart Institute, Ludhiana cannot be given to him as per the instructions on account of the fact the said hospital is a private hospital.

(2.) Upon issuance of notice of motion, the respondents have filed written statement.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondents, we are of the opinion that the short controversy involved in the present case is as to whether the claim for medical reimbursement of the Government employee could be rejected merely on the ground that the treatment has been taken from the hospital, which is not on the approved list of the Haryana Government even though the treatment has been taken in emergency. The said question came up for consideration before the Division of this Court in Shakuntla Vs. State of Haryana, 2004(1) R.S.J. 283 : [2004(1) SLR 563 (P&H)] and it was held that in case of saving a human life at a given point of time, it is not expected of an attendant to look into the list and then hunt for the hospital which is contained therein. It was also observed that the emergency act when required to be committed should not be weighed in terms of money especially when human life is at stake.