GYANENDRA KUMAR PAREEK Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the request of learned Counsel for the parties, the final arguments were heard.

(2.) THE petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 11th September, 2007 (Annexure -4), whereby his medical bill of Rs. 1,51,465/ - for reimbursement has been rejected by the respondent No. 3 - Treasurer, Treasury Office, Sikar on the ground that the Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital, Jaipur, where his angiography and angioplasty were done, was not recognized hospital.

(3.) THE submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner suffered heart attack and looking to his serious condition, his family members took him to Santokba Durlabhji Hospital, Jaipur, where he was treated; he was entitled for medical reimbursement and the same could not have been denied only on the ground that the said Hospital was not recognized. His submission is that main consideration in the mind of family members was to save the life of the petitioner and at that point of time, whatever hospital came to their mind and considered just was felt as the best because emergency knows no law and no procedure and when human life is at stake, in such situation ultimate responsibility of the State cannot be washed out, therefore, the respondents committed an illegality in rejecting the claim of the petitioner only on this ground and as such the impugned order is liable to be quashed. He alternatively contended that whatever amount was admissible as per scheme for grant of medical concessions to State Government pensioners should have been allowed to the petitioner. He referred Section 4B(ii)(b) and (c) of the scheme.