HARNEER KAUR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by petitioner for direction to the respondents to make payment of Rs. 80,000/- along with interest @ 12% till the date of realization of above amount, which she claimed for expenses incurred for permanent implantation of dual chamber pace maker during her treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi.

(2.) THE petitioner is at present working on the post of Staff Nurse in Mardana Hospital, Bikaner under the control of respondent no. 2. Petitioner suffered Cardiac disease and on account of said disease she was admitted to hospital and thereafter looking to seriousness of her ailment she was required to undergo Electro Physiological study for which she was referred to AIIMS, New Delhi. Pursuant to diagnosis made by AIIMS, she was advised for implantation of dual chamber pace maker for which she was directed to pay cost of Rs. 1,40,000/- , which petitioner paid and is evident from invoice filed along with writ petition as Annex. 3.

(3.) IN reply, it is contended by learned counsel for the State that as per provisions of Rule 3 of Rules of 1970 claim for cost of dual chamber pace maker is not expressly provided and while inviting attention towards Rule 3 of Rules of 1970 it is submitted upon perusal of whole Rule it is abundantly clear that no specific provision is made by Legislature for reimbursement of cost of pace maker, whereas, vide notification dated 1/5/1983 cost wholly or partly of hearing aid or artificial limb (including cost of replacing limb) or callipers was included for the purpose of reimbursement but Legislature has not chosen to include the cost of pace maker for the purpose of reimbursement under the Rules of 1970, therefore, in absence of any Rule the welfare State while granting relaxation allowed Rs. 60,000/- against cost of pace maker. Therefore, action of respondents is perfectly in accordance with Rule 3 of the Rules of 1970.