VANDANA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 18. 3. 1996 passed by the State Government whereby increase in the earlier sanctioned amount has been denied and has further claimed reimbursement of the balance amount of treatment abroad of her husband, amounting to Rs. 11. 04 lacs together with interest. Further prayer for grant of compensation has also been made by the petitioner.

(2.) FACTS of the case with regard to taking medical treatment abroad by husband of the petitioner Rajendra Kumar Gupta, who at the relevant time was employed as Electrical Engineer in Instrumentation Limited, Kota are not in dispute. Other facts of sanction of Rs. 2 lacs by way of advance vide order dated 7. 7. 1995 and receipt thereof by the petitioner are also not disputed. Petitioner in para 8 of the writ petition has mentioned the fact that the Principal, SMS Medical College vide his letter dated 5. 4. 1995 clarified that bone marrow transplant facility is not available in India and further mentioned the estimated cost of treatment in U. K. as Rs. 17. 30 to 27. 00 lacs and in USA Rs. 30. 00 to 37. 00 lacs. considering the above mentioned fact, the petitioner took her husband to UCL Hospital in UK where cost of treatment was comparatively low as compared to USA. The petitioner incurred an expenditure of Rs. 13. 04 lacs. However, claim of the petitioner for reimbursement of the balance amount of Rs. 11. 04 lacs on account of taking treatment in UCL Hospital, London for Bone Marrow Translant (Stem Cell Transplant) is in dispute on the ground of entitlement of the reimbursement of expenses incurred in the abroad treatment of the petitioner's husband under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendant) Rules, 1970 (in short `the Rules of 1970') whereas according to the petitioner, case of her husband is covered by the circular dated 21. 2. 1989 specifically issued for taking treatment abroad, for the reason that facility for treatment of such ailment in India is yet not widely established. The petitioner submitted all the medical bills for the treatment taken by her husband at UCL Hospital, UK duly verified by the doctor. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of expenses incurred in treatment of her husband as aforesaid taken outside India. The petitioner has based her claim on Rule 3 (1) (ix) of the Rules of 1970 and the circular dated 21. 2. 1989 (Anx. 21 ).

(3.) CLAUSES 4 and 5 of the circular dated 21. 2. 1989 read as under: = "4. The following ailments have been identified by the Central Government vide their Office Memorandum No. S. 14025/99/81; MS dated 6th December, 1982 as being such for which facilities for treatment in India are not yet widely established; and these have been accepted by the State Government also for adoption. = (i) Cadaver Kidney transplant; = (ii) Old operated bypass surgery cases (in which the initial operation was done abroad) needing revascularization; = (iii) Bone marrow transplant; = (iv) Operative correction for high myopia case; = (v) Complex cyanote Heart-Lesion and newly born infants suffering from heart diseases. = 5. Reimbursement of actual hospital expenses only in connection with treatment received abroad of the ailments mentioned in Para 4 may be permitted by the Administrative Department of the Government after obtaining prior concurrence of the Finance Department in relaxation of the rules provided the recognized referral hospital to which the ailing person was referred in accordance with the provisions contained in the relevant Medical Attendance Rules certifies that the treatment is not available in India and the certificate is endorsed by the Director, Medical and Health Services or the Principal of a Medical College. The question of reimbursement of travelling cost in such cases would not arise and all other expenses incidental to the treatment would also be borne by the government servant himself.