Tuesday, 19, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Prabhu Ram Khileri vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 11655 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 11655 Raj
Judgement Date : 19 September, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prabhu Ram Khileri vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 September, 2022
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6199/2020

Prabhu Ram Khileri S/o Sukh Ram Khileri, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Post Sonadi, Tehsil Sedwa, District Barmer.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director, State Insurance And Provident Fund Department, 2-2A, Bima Bhawan, Sawai Jai Singh Highway, Bani Park, Jaipur.

2. Additional Director, General Insurance And Mediclaim Wing, State Insurance And Provident Fund Department, Block D, Second Floor, Vit Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur.

3. Deputy Director, Office And The Joint Director State Insurance And Provident Fund Department, Collectorate Campus, Barmer.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pratyushi Mehta, for Mr. Sandeep Shah, Sr. Advocate-cum-

AAG.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR Order

19/09/2022

Briefly stated facts of the case are the petitioner's mother

slipped over a surface and suffered injury in her knees and was

immediately taken to Vasundhra Hospital, Jodhpur for check-up.

On the advice of treating doctors, petitioner's mother underwent

both knee joint replacement surgery on 13.05.2019 and was

discharged on 17.05.2019. The petitioner thereafter submitted an

application dated 22.05.2019 claiming reimbursement of medical

bills to the tune of ₹2,75,570/-. The respondent-authorities

refused the claim for medical reimbursement on the count that the

(2 of 3) [CW-6199/2020]

treatment was taken at Vasundhra Hospital does not fall within the

list of state-recognized hospitals. Aggrieved by the denial off

medical reimbursement, the petitioner has preferred the present

writ petition.

In Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported

in AIR 1996 SC 1388, decided on 31.01.1996, the Hon'ble Apex

Court held as under:-

"10. ........... ............ In such an urgency one cannot sit at home and think in a cool and calm atmosphere for 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. We share the views afore-expressed"

In Rama Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.;

S.B.C.W.P. No.7469/2016, decided on 21.01.2022, passed by

this Court, it was held as under:-

"............ It is now a settled position of law that even in cases where the treatment of an employee has been taken in non-recognized hospital the medical reimbursement has to be made at the rate that may be applicable for similar treatment in the recognized government hospitals."

In view of the ratio laid down in the above mentioned

judgments, it is a settled law that even if some medical treatment

is undertaken in a private/unrecognized hospital, the department

is under an obligation to reimburse the amount to the extent

permissible under the rules in vogue. In the present case, the

treatment was taken by the petitioner's wife on 28.11.2015, so it

is governed by Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance)

Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2013'). The

(3 of 3) [CW-6199/2020]

hyper technical ground cannot supersede the object of Rules of

2013 i.e. to provide shield against increasing medical costs due to

hospitalization in severe illness. The claim cannot be merely

rejected on these hyper technical grounds when the treatment is

not disputed by the respondent-department.

Therefore, the present writ petition is allowed. The

respondent authorities are directed to consider the medical claim

of the petitioner and reimburse the amount payable in terms of

the Rules of 2013. The complete consideration and the

reimbursement thereof would be made within a period of two

months from the date of the receipt of this order. In case, the

claim of the petitioner is not settled within the aforesaid period,

the same shall carry an interest @ 6% per annum.

No order as to costs.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 20-Prashant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter