RAJ KUMAR DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT writ application has been filed for quashing the letter no. 1376(14) dated 28.2.2002 issued under the signature of Deputy Director, Health Services, Government of Bihar, whereby and whereunder by only sanctioning medical expenditure of Rs. 65,805.31 further amount of Rs. 46,997.69 has been directed to be readjusted as unutilised amount and recovery of the same has been directed. The aforesaid letter is contained in Annexure -16.

(2.) A further prayer has been made for actual re -imbursement of entire expenditure which has been accrued due to medical treatment on the husband of writ petitioner as certified by Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow (hereinafter to be referred to as S.G.P.G.I. Lucknow).

(3.) UNFORTUNATELY because of the advance stage of the ailment, petitioner 'shusband could not survive the treatment and before transplanation he died. Now the question which is required to be considered is as to whether if the transplanation could not be done, the amount spent on his treatment were required to be reimbursed or not? Whether the State can distinguish the case of the petitioner with another similarly situated person only on the ground that the said person got a transplanation done whereas the petitioner 'shusband died before transplanation could be done. As would be clear from the counter affidavit this is the only ground for denial of the expenditure incurred on the treatment of the petitioner 'shusband. The petitioner 's husband not on his own reckoning did not get his kidney transplanted. He had no desire to die and desired to get the amount reimbursed by the State. This peculiar stand of the Health Department cannot be appreciated. If that be the only difference in the case of the petitioner and the case of Dr. Vinay Kumar, total expenses of the petitioner 'shusband are to be reimbursed. The Health Departmenl was required to go into this aspect of the matter as to whether there has been actual expenditure of the treatment of the petitioner 'shusband or not. Petitioner 'shusband was an employee of the State is an accepted fact. His treatment could not be made in the State of Bihar and had been recommended for treatment outside the State which was sanctioned and approved is an accepted fact. He was undergoing treatment that is not denied. Only he was referred to S.G.P.G.I., Lucknow. Then also Additional Secretary granted approval. Treatment had been made but unfortunately the disease had spread to the extent that was required to be treated before actual transplanation could be done. Petitioner 'shusband could not survive the same that is unfortunate for the family of the deceased Government servant. State has to act as per its rules regarding reimbursement and if one man has been reimbursed the other man has also required to be reimbursed the actual expenditure. It is accordingly ordered.