SITA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to reimburse all the expenses incurred by him on account of an accident suffered by him, along with interest.

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioner is a retired Government servant and he is a pensioner having P.P.O. No. 603326. He went on pilgrimage at Rameshwaram where he fell down from the roof in the evening of 5.6.1998 and suffered numerous injuries, as a result of which he became unconscious. With the help of some surrounded persons at Rameshwaram, the petitioner was immediately taken and admitted in Meenakshi Mission Hospital & Research Centre, Madhurai (Tamil Nadu) and underwent emergency treatment. The said hospital is a recognized hospital for treatment of Central Government Employees under the CS (MA) Rules, 1994 vide No. S.1421/5/96 dated 3.8.1997 issued by the Ministry of Family & Health Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi vide Annexure-2. The petitioner suffered very severe head injury and became unconscious and underwent various tests like CT SCAN of brain etc. There was right temporal communized fracture and haemorrhage as also four to ten multiple ribs were fractured on the right side to cardiological disorderness and suffered cardiological disease. He remained hospitalized in the emergency ward in an unconscious and coma state for nearly two months and underwent various kind of treatments. He suffered head injury IGCS-8/15 and multiple ribs-fractures (right 4th to 10th) and fracture of right clavical, acute lung injury, haemothrac (left) and Haemopneumothorzx (right), Bilateral IC was done immediately. His arterial blood gas report showed severe hypoxaemia with inadequate gas exchange across the Alveolocapillary membrane. He was placed on Mechanical Ventilatory support after awake Nasotracheal Intubation. ICD were removed after few days. Lungs expanded well with BIPAP Ventilation, Serial ABG's reflected Poor Oxygenation and inadequate gas exchange. He was conscious, oridenated (oriented ?), interacting veaning from the ventilator was attempted frequently but it was unsuccessful as he had classical presentation of A.R.D.S. The petitioner showed significant improvement clinically, Radiologically and ABG-wise after change of mode of Ventilation (BIPAP with IRV). The petitioner had been treated with Broad Spectrum Abtibiotics. Pulmonary Vasodilators. Initially intermittent weaning was attempted but his blood gases reports were not encouraging. The petitioner did not go for Multiple Organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) fortunately. Petitioner was on Mechanically Ventilatory support for 16 days and was extubated after 18 days. He was on continuous 02 Supplementation with venti-Mas, FI 02 was reduced gradually. He co-operated well for deep breathing exercises (with incentive spirometery) and made ambulatory. Selective active Chest Psiotherapy (left) and limb physiotherapy was given to him. Radiologically clearance was seen on Serial Chest X-ray's. Arterial Blood gas values normalized by the time of his discharge. Recouping therefrom, the petitioner was discharged from the said hospital after a long treatment on 1.7.1998 vide Annexure 5. On arrival to Rajasthan, the petitioner submitted the medical reimbursement bills to the respondents for medical treatments and other expenses incurred by him on various tests etc. amounting to Rs. 2,20,000/- vide Annexure-6. A Medical Board was constituted and the medical report was prepared vide Annexure-11. There had been some communications between the Treasury Officer, Bikaner and the District Collector, Bikaner vide Annexure-7 to Annexure-10. The medical claim of the petitioner was returned to him vide Annexure-9 by the Treasury Officer, Bikaner noticing certain shortcomings in the bills. Thereafter vide Annexure-12, respondent No. 3 the District Collector, Bikaner approached the respondent No. 2 the Director, Pension and Pensioners' Welfare, Rajasthan, Jaipur for consideration of petitioner's case under Rule 4 of the Rajasthan State Pensioners Medical Concession Scheme (for short, "the Scheme" hereinafter). However, vide order Annexure R-1, the Sub-Committee of the Board of Trustees, in its meeting held on 14.2.2000, rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the treatment was taken by the petitioner in Meenakashi Mission Hospital, Madhurai which is not a recognised hospital by the State Government and also on the ground that the petitioner did not have a renewed medical diary at the time of his treatment. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.