Manohar Lal Deora vs Rsrtc And Ors. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3751 Raj

[2023/RJJD/012489]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 44/2018

Manohar Lal Deora Son Of Shri Mishri Lal, Resident Of Inside Jalori Gate, Opposite Bal Vidhya Bhawan School, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through Managing Director, Head Office, Choumu House, Parivahan Marg Jaipur.

2. The Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Head Office, Choumu House, Parivahan Marg Jaipur.

3. The Financial Advisor, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Head Office, Choumu House, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.

4. The Chief Manager/depot Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jodhpur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devendra Soni for Mr. Sukesh Bhati For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Purohit

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

27/04/2023 I.A.No.01/2023:

For the reasons stated, the application seeking early listing

of the matter is allowed.

The matter is taken up for consideration today itself.

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 44/2018:

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition

challenging the action of the respondent-Corporation, which has

rejected petitioner's claim for medical reimbursement in its

entirety.

[2023/RJJD/012489] (2 of 4) [CW-44/2018]

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for the

present purposes are that on 27.08.2009, the petitioner suffered a

brain hemorrhage and soon became unconscious. His relatives

took him to Appollo Hospital, Ahemdabad for his treatment.

3. Petitioner's claim for reimbursement of Medical expenses

came to be rejected by the respondents on the ground that the

treatment undertaken by the petitioner was not from a recognized

government hospital or referral hospital.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that life

threatening situation such as the one in hand when a person

needs immediate treatment, the family, who is in utter distress

cannot be expected to keep in mind the provision that the case

has to be got referred.

5. It was also argued that in the case of brain hemorrhage, the

urgency of treatment itself requires a patient to be immediately

taken to the best centre and therefore, respondents' action of

refusing the medical reimbursement is illegal.

6. Mr. Sunil Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents submitted that ignorance of law is no excuse and it

was for the petitioner and his relatives to get his case referred to

a higher centre, as is provided in the Regulations issued by the

respondent-Corporation in this regard.

7. Mr. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in

almost identical facts, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the

case of Ibrahim Khan Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport

[2023/RJJD/012489] (3 of 4) [CW-44/2018]

Corporation & Anr. decided on 16.09.2022 in S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.1388/2015 directed the respondent-Corporation to

pay amount as is payable in terms of Regulation No.9(3) of the

RSRTC Medical Attendance Regulations, 2011.

8. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the respondents is not in a

position to dispute the aforesaid position of fact and law.

9. Heard rival counsel and perused the record.

10. In the opinion of this Court in a case like the present one,

when the sole male member or the earning member of the family

gets severely indisposed by a disease like brain hemorrhage, heart

attack, etc., his family members cannot be expected to run from

pillar to post to get his case referred. Nor can they be expected to

know the Regulations of the Corporation. The genuine claim of an

employee cannot be rejected on this hyper-technical ground.

11. Be that as it may. The Regulations of 2011 provide for

amount equivalent to Government Hospitals to be paid as has

been held in the case of Ibrahim Khan (supra).

12. The respondent-Corporation is directed to pay the amount

payable to the petitioner in terms of the judgment in the case of

Ibrahim Khan (supra) so also in terms of Regulations of 2011.

13. The amount aforesaid shall carry interest @ 6% from the

date of filing of the writ petition, i.e. 21.12.2017 till actual

payment.

14. The present writ petition is allowed.

[2023/RJJD/012489] (4 of 4) [CW-44/2018]

15. The stay petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 48-pooja/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)