RAGHUNATH PRASAD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has been denied reimbursement of medical bills on the ground that the patient (wife of the petitioner) was taken to the AIIMS, New Delhi without seeking opinion of the Medical Board. Time and again this court as also the Apex Court have expressed anxiety in such matters. In the case of saving of a human life at a given point of time it is not expected of an attendant to indulge in all such formalities. Such procedure should not be expected to be followed in an emergency by the attendant of the patient. In case of grave emergency whichever hospital comes to the mind of the attendant and which hospital is considered just for saving the life of the patient is the prime consideration. Such decisions some times crucial for saving the life of an individual. If the conditions imposed by the respondents in their Scheme are applied so strictly, the end result may be disastrous and in the situation the patient may even die. It is only in normal circumstances the procedure prescribed should be followed but the procedure should also not be made so cumbersome that one may get frustrated in adhering to such procedure. Emergency knows no law and no procedures. The emergency act when required to be committed should not be weighted in terms of money especially when human life is at stake. In such circumstances, even the ultimate responsibility of the State cannot be washed out. A Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 457/2001, State of Rajasthan vs. Navratan Mal Mehta decided on 11. 5. 2004, has also observed that preserve health and obtain medical aid in furtherance of self preservation is part of right of life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, in the given circumstances, the petitioner is also entitled for reimbursement of medical expenses irrespective of the place where the treatment has been received. Even this court, in the case of V. D. Saxena vs. State of Rajasthan (2003 (3) RLR 629) had held that denial of reimbursement on technical grounds is nothing but arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust.

(2.) IN a welfare State, the welfare of the people is frustrated just because of bureaucratic approach of the concerning authorities. A person having put in whole life in the services of the State till he attains the age of superannuation always require human considerations. Technicalities of rules and regulations are not required to be followed just in a mechanical manner so as to frustrate the very purpose of the Scheme. Each case has to be examined on its own facts before taking any final decision. While granting such benefits under beneficial schemes, financial constraints are also always secondary.