SATYAPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer for reimbursement of the medical claim of the petitioner which was incurred qua his treatment for brain hemorrhage. The submission of the petitioner is that he had suffered brain hemorrhage and in an emergent condition, he was admitted to Goyal Hospital, Jodhpur and underwent treatment there. After two days of hospitalization i.e. from 4/9/2009 to 6/9/2009 at Goyal Hospital, Jodhpur he was referred to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi and remained hospitalized there from 7/2/2009 to 4/3/2009. At Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi he underwent a surgery and qua the complete treatment, he incurred an expenditure of Rs.5,07,919.00 (Rs.85,204.00 incurred at Goyal Hospital, Jodhpur and Rs.4,22,715.00 incurred at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi). When the medical claim was raised with the respondent-Department, only Rs.25,000.00 was sanctioned qua the same.

(2.) It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he being admitted in a private hospital due to the emergent condition of brain hemorrhage and then referred to a higher center by the local Doctor, was entitled for reimbursement of the complete medical bills as raised by him.

(3.) Per contra, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the State as well as the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur that in terms of Rule 10 of the Rules of Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2008) firstly, no emergent situation as prescribed under the Rules of 2008 has been explained in the present matter and secondly, the treatment has been undertaken by the petitioner in private hospitals both of which are neither recognized nor referral hospitals of the State or the Department. Learned counsel further argued that the claim in question had been raised in the year 2009 and reimbursement of an amount of Rs.25,000.00 was also made in the year 2010 but the present writ petition has been filed in the year 2019 and no reason for such delay has been explained by the petitioner. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the present writ petition is liable to be rejected on the sole ground of limitation.