CHAINSINGH PANWAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 5. 1. 2001 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to reimburse all the expenses incurred by the petitioner on treatment of his Coronory Artery By Pass Surgery as Escort Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi and all other ancillary tests performed by him at various Labs and Hospitals.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows :- THE petitioner is a member of Rajasthan Administrative Service and presently, he is working as Land Settlement Officer, Jodhpur. When the petitioner got himself checked at Government Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur, he was found suffering from Cardiac trouble and he was advised for stress thallium and since that facility was not available in the State of Rajasthan, the petitioner went to Delhi. A copy of the prescription dated 17. 1. 2000 by Dr. Sanjeev Sanghvi is marked as Annex. 1. THE further case of the petitioner is that at Delhi he had to undergo various tests for test of Stress Thallium and the petitioner was found suffering from two vessal disease and his left artery was 99% blocked. THE Coronary Angiography Reports of the petitioner dated 31. 1. 2000 by Dharma Vira Heart Centre, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi are marked as Annex. 3 and Annex. 4. THEreafter, the petitioner had to rush to the Escort Heart Institute and Research Centre, Delhi and he sent a message by fax on 1. 2. 2000 through Annex. 5 to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur. On 4. 2. 2000, a Medical Board of doctors of Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur was constituted and the petitioner was advised for the coronary artery by pass surgery for which he was referred to All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, but the petitioner insisted that he might be allowed to get his treatment at Escort Heart Institute and Research Centre, Delhi and for that, it was advised by the Medical Board that he would get reimbursement equivalent to All India Institute of Medical Sciences, as per Government order. THE further case of the petitioner is on 4. 2. 2000 his By Pass Surgery was performed at Escort Heart Institute and Research Centre, Delhi and for that, certificate Annex. 6 may be referred to. THE petitioner was discharged from Escort Heart Institute and Research Centre, Delhi on 10. 2. 2000 and a certificate to that effect is marked Annex. 8. THEreafter, the petitioner submitted all the bills for by pass surgery performed at Escort Heart Institute and Research Centre, Delhi and also bills of relevant tests performed by him, before the concerned authorities for reimbursement and they are marked as Annex. 9, Annex. 10 and Annex. 11 and the said bills are still pending with the respondents and no order for reimbursement of bills has been passed so far. Hence, this writ petition with the prayers as stated above. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and their case is that the matter in the case of the petitioner is under consideration and is in the process, but the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court pre-maturely. THE further reply of the respondents is that as per the Raj Civil Service (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to "as the Rules of 1970") and particularly Rules 6 and 7 with Appendix-II clearly provide that expenditure incurred on medical treatment is reimbursable only if a case is duly authorised/sanctioned by the competent authority. Furthermore, if the patient is required to be treated outside the State, in that case, he could get himself treated at the Institution/hospital mentioned in the Appendix-II appended to the Rules of 1970. Since the petitioner had moved to Escort Heart Institute on his own will though he was advised for treatment at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi, therefore, he was not entitled to reimbursement for the treatment which he had undergone at Escort Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.

(3.) THE Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab (1), has observed as follows:- " It is otherwise important to bear in mind that self preservation of one's life is the necessary concomitant of the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, fundamental in nature, sacred, precious and inviolable. THE importance and validity of the duty and right to self- preservation has a species in the right of self defence in criminal law. Centuries ago thinkers of this Great Land conceived of such right had recognized it. Attention can usefully be drawn to versus 17, 18, 20 in Chapter 16 of the Garuda Purana (A dialogue suggested between the Divine and Garuda, the bird) in the words of the Divine :. . . . . . "