SHANTILAL NYATI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order Annex.6 dt. 30.12.2004 and Annex.7 dt. 20.09.2004 and a direction to the respondents to reimburse the medical bills submitted by him with interest.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) IT is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has taken the treatment in an emergent situation and therefore, there was hardly any time for the petitioner to have approached to the Medical Board seeking approval to undergo treatment. Similar controversy came to be considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Anil Kumar Surolia v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2005 (3) WLC (Raj.) 396. In that case, the petitioner therein had to go to Ahmedabad to meet his brother Anupam Surolia in August, 2000, where he suffered another heart attack and was taken to Rajasthan Hospital at Ahmedabad where due to non -availability of heart surgeon, he was taken to Krishna Heart Institute where his Angiography and Angioplasty was done. Krishna Heart Institute charged a sum of Rs. 78,000/ - towards Angiography and Angioplasty and other medical expenses. The petitioner therein submitted his representation for reimbursement of his mediclaim, however, after process, the authorities refused to sanction the reimbursement of mediclaim of the petitioner. The petitioner again moved by way of representation to Principal, SMS Medical College. His case was referred to the Registrar General of this Court who once again referred the case of the petitioner to the Secretary to Govt. Law and Legal Affairs. The Principal, SMS Medical College once again refused to grant sanction for reimbursement of mediclaim on the ground that Krishna Heart Institute was not an approved institute of the Govt. of Rajasthan. The Deputy Secretary to Govt. Law Department also refused the mediclaim of the petitioner on the ground that he was not referred out of the State for treatment and Krishna Heart Institute was not approved hospital under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendant) Rules. On a writ petition before this Court, the Division Bench of this Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the medical treatment in a hospital which was not a Government hospital necessitated on account of circumstances beyond the control. The Division Bench observed as under: 6. In the factual background as detailed above, we are of the firm view that even if the required treatment was available in SMS Hospital at Jaipur or other approved hospitals in the State of Rajasthan, the petitioner was indeed entitled to medical reimbursement if he had got the treatment elsewhere necessitated on account of circumstances beyond his control. Self preservance is the first instinct in every human being. Person having suffered heart attach is not expected to await treatment at a far off distance as time is the essence in saving valuable life in such matters. There is every risk of a person breathing his last if he has to await treatment of heart attack. In the circumstances, even if such medical treatment as obtained by a Government employee be available in the State itself, he shall be still entitled to medical reimbursement for the treatment obtained elsewhere if the same is necessitated on account of circumstances beyond his control. In emergent situation thus it is not incumbent for a patient to obtain medical treatment only in approved hospitals of the Government. We would have discussed the matter in further details as per provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendant) Rules, but it is conceded during the course of arguments that if the petitioner was to obtain medical treatment at SMS Hospital at Jaipur or other Government approved hospitals in the State of Rajasthan, he would have been paid the same amount for the treatment he ultimately got from Krishna Heart Institute. If that be a fact, and which as mentioned above, is concerned, we are of the view that the stand taken by the State Government is obdurate and wholly uncalled for. We could imagine if perhaps the petitioner had spent far more and was claiming the same while getting treatment in a non -approved hospital. Government in any case had to pay the same amount spent by the petitioner at Krishna Heart Institute even if the petitioner was to get treatment in SMS Hospital or other approved hospital in the State of Rajasthan. This Court cannot but deprecate the attitude of the Government in rejecting justified claims in teeth of the recommendations made by this Court. Registrar General of this Court indeed supported the cause of the petitioner but the favourable recommendation made by this Court have been turned down on wholly untenable grounds.