RAKESH KUMAR BANSAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

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 the medical bills for the treatment of his mother incurring the expenses of Rs. 3,86,430/ - as per the bills submitted by him with interest.

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioner, the Member of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Services, while posted as Additional District Judge, Kota, his mother Smt. Premlata fell ill due to Multiple Brain Aneurysm, however, the petitioner's mother at the relevant time when she fell ill was at Udaipur. The petitioner's mother was taken to RNT Medical College and Controller, Associated Group of Hospital, Udaipur for check -up and treatment. The Principal, RNT Medical College and Controller, Associated Group of Hospital, Udaipur by office order Annexure -2 came to the opinion on the basis of the opinion of the Authorized Medical Attendant/Medical Board and Dr. Tarun Kumar Gupta, Asstt. Professor in Neuro Surgery that it is absolutely essential for the recovery of the patient to have specialized treatment/ investigation at Bombay Hospital, Mumbai, which has been recognized for the purpose of Rule 7(3) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1970 (for short "the Rules of 1970" hereinafter). It was further opined by the Authorized Attendant/Medical Board that it is unsafe for the patient to travel unattendant and that an attendant is necessary to accompany the patient to the place of the treatment and back. In pursuance of the Government notification dt. 22.03.1985 and the Government circular dt. 06.03.2002, Smt. Premlata was referred to Bombay Hospital, Mumbai for her specialized treatment with one attendant. The petitioner took her mother Smt. Premlata for getting her treated at Bombay Hospital, Mumbai and incurred expenses to the tune of Rs. 3,86,430/ - including the travelling expenses for obtaining such treatment and submitted the bills to the respondents for reimbursement, which have not yet been reimbursed. A notice for demand of justice by Annexure -9 dt. 29.03.2006 was served on the respondents before seeking the writ of mandamus to the respondents directing them for making the payment aforesaid. Even after the notice for demand of justice, the respondents failed to reimburse the amount of medical expenses noticed above. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent -State stating therein that petitioner's mother was referred to Bombay Hospital, Mumbai on the request of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the reimbursement of the medical claim to the extent of limit of expenses had the patient be treated by All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi (for short "the A.I.I.M.S" hereinafter). Be that as it may, even the petitioner's claim has not been reimbursed even according to the stand taken by the respondent -State.