MISS SHANTA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was retired from the post of Health Assistant on 31.05.2008. The petitioner while in service suffered from Cardiac disease and on account of said disease, she initially was admitted at Govt. Hospital, Pali. However, looking to the seriousness of her ailment, she was referred to Mathura Das Mathur Hospital, Jodhpur on 07.06.2009. The petitioner was thereafter was referred to higher centre and thereafter she under went major heart surgery of replacement of valve at Escort Fortis Hospital, Noida, and incurred medical expenses to the tune of Rs.2,48,933.36 paid by her to said approved Hospital i.e. Escort Fortis Hospital, Noida for her treatment of surgery of replacement of valve in the heart.

(2.) THE petitioner submitted an application before the District Reproductive and Child Health Officer, Pali along -with which she submitted the bills, receipt and certificate for reimbursement given by the concerned doctor. Thereafter, the application was forwarded to the Director, Directorate Medical and Health Services, Jaipur. The claim for reimbursement of the petitioner under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1970 (Rules of 1970, for short) was, however, not sanctioned by the respondents. The petitioner served a legal notice (Annex.8) dated 17.03.2009 through her counsel. Thereafter, vide the letter dated 26.03.2009 (Annex.9) issued by the District Reproductive and Child officer, Pali, the petitioner was asked to furnish certain information for making payment to her although all the relevant bills and other certificate were submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by way of present writ petition which was filed by her on 13.04.2009.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Anil Bissa, learned Govt. Counsel urged that despite the fact the petitioner was asked to furnish certain information, she failed to furnish the same, therefore, the petitioner's case for reimbursement of the medical expenses could not be processed. He also submitted that the petitioner had taken her treatment at a private hospital though she was referred to S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur, however, instead of taking treatment at S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur, the petitioner was treated at private hospital, which he fairly admitted that the same is approved hospital, and, therefore, expenditure incurred by the petitioner cannot be reimbursed for want of certain information on the part of the petitioner.