SAJJAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 26 -04 -2004 (Annexure P7) whereby the medical reimbursement claim amounting to Rs. 49,934.38 paise on account of treatment taken by the petitioner from Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute, New Delhi was rejected.

(2.) THE petitioner, who is working as a junior Engineer in Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, was referred by the Civil Surgeon, Jind for consultation to Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi. However, Dr. Manish Aggarwal, Consultant with Indraprastha Apollo Hospital further referred the petitioner for treatment to Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'PSRI') as the procedure required upon the petitioner could not be performed at Indraprastha Apollo Hospital. As a consequence of such reference, the petitioner was operated upon by Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute. For the expenses on the medical treatment, the petitioner submitted his bills for reimbursement. However, reimbursement of amount of Rs. 49,934.38 paise was declined on the ground that the petitioner has taken treatment from Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute, which is a private hospital and not recognized by the State Government.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the stand of the respondents. It is apparent from the documents produced on record that the petitioner was referred by the Civil Surgeon, Jind to Indraprastha Apollo Hospital for the consultation and treatment of disease Renal Stone. It was the Consultant of Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, who has further referred the petitioner to Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute as the procedure on the petitioner could not be performed at the said Hospital. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has approached Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute without proper reference. In fact, the PSRI would be deemed to be an agent of Apollo Hospital. The argument that the prior approval of the Chief Medical Officer of the Nigam was required is wholly immaterial. Once the petitioner has been referred by the Civil Surgeon to Apollo Hospital, it was not necessary for the petitioner to seek any prior approval from the Chief Medical Officer. Learned Counsel for the respondents could not justify the purpose of seeking approval from the Chief Medical Officer of the Nigam when the Civil Surgeon has referred the petitioner to Apollo Hospital. Therefore, the argument that the prior approval from the Chief Medical Officer of the Nigam was required is wholly irrelevant and not feasible keeping in view the urgency in which the petitioner was required to be treated.