Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Malam Singh vs State Of Raj. And Ors on 8 September, 2022
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11874/2016
Malam Singh S/o Sh. Bhikh Singh Mertiya, aged 58 years,
Resident of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Residential Quarter No.8,
Sumerpur, District Pali (Raj).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of
Agriculture Marketing, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. General Manager, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing
Board, Jaipur
3. Executive Engineer, Agriculture Marketing Board, Sumerpur,
Pali
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pushkar Taimini
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.G. Ojha
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
08/09/2022
The present petition has been filed for reimbursement of the
medical bills of the petitioner qua the expenses incurred by him
qua the Coronary Artery Bypass Graft procedure.
The case of the petitioner is that he was on privilege leave
from 20.01.2015 to 25.01.2015 and during that period he had
visited Gujarat where he fell ill and in an emergent condition he
was admitted to CIMS Hospital, Ahmedabad. He underwent
Coronary Artery Bypass Graft procedure and incurred expenses
amounting to Rs.1,61,221/- qua the said procedure. The
petitioner submitted requisite bills for reimbursement with the
(2 of 3) [CW-11874/2016]
respondent Department but no action whatsoever was taken by
the respondent Department qua the same.
A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent
Department and it has been averred that as there was no
document to suggest that the petitioner underwent the Coronary
Artery Bypass Graft procedure because of an emergency, his claim
could not have been entertained.
A perusal of the record clearly shows that no action
whatsoever has been taken by the respondent Department qua
the medical claim of the petitioner. No denial or any reason for
non consideration has been placed on record. It is the settled
position of law that where a treatment of an employee has been
taken in a non-recognized hospital, medical reimbursement has to
be made at the rates that may be applicable for the similar
treatment in the recognized hospital. Moreover, Rule 11 of the
Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013
(hereinafter referred to as, 'Rules of 2013') provides as under:
"11. Indoor Treatment in a private unrecognised
hospital within the State and out side the State in
case of emergent circumstances: The
reimbursement shall be allowed to the extent
prescribed in Appendix-IX & Appendix-XIII for the
charges paid by a Government servant on account of
medical attendance and treatment as indoor patient in
private unrecognised hospital within the State or out
side the State in case of grave emergency for life
threatening diseases or in case of accident. The
emergent nature of hospitalization in private hospitals
has to be established by an affidavit of the employee
supported by a certificate of the treating doctor. No
follow-up treatment shall be allowed in the cases where
the treatment has been undertaken in emergent
circumstances."
In Surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in
AIR 1996 SC 1388 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"..... In such an urgency one cannot sit at home
and think in a cool and calm atmosphere for
(3 of 3) [CW-11874/2016]
getting medical treatment at a particular hospital
or wait for admission in some Government medical
institute. In such a situation, decision has to be
taken forthwith by the person or his attendants if
precious life has to be saved."
Further in case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Tikam
Chand Maloo; D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1124/2015, the
Division Bench of this Court held as under:
"Upon consideration of the aforesaid judgment
coupled with the Rules, so also, adjudication made
in the connected appeal being DBSAW
No.1192/2014 (State & Ors. Vs. Jawahar Lal
Bohra) decided today itself, it is obvious that this
Court took view that in emergent situation, if the
Govt. employee took treatment outside the State
that too in unrecognized hospital, as per Rules
then also, he is entitled for reimbursement of the
medical expenses which are scheduled under the
Rules."
In view of the settled proposition of law and in view of the
ratio as laid down in above mentioned judgments, the present
petition is allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to
consider the medical bills filed by the petitioner and reimburse the
amount as permissible in terms of Rule 11 of the Rules of 2013.
The reimbursement be made within a period of three weeks from
the date of filing of the present order.
(REKHA BORANA),J
97-T.Singh, AbhishekS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
