Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kesra Ram vs State And Anr (2024:Rj-Jd:9411) on 23 February, 2024
[2024:RJ-JD:9411]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9571/2008
Kesra Ram
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Anr
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Firoda a/w Mr. Jayram
Saran.
For Respondent(s) : None present.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
23/02/2024
1. Aggrieved by note/order dated 19.02.2008 (Annex.3), vide
which the respondents denied the claim of petitioner for
reimbursement of medical expenses for treatment at a private
hospital, he is before this court seeking quashing thereof.
2. Relevant facts of the case are that:
2.1 The petitioner works as a Ward Boy in Government Bangar
Hospital, Deedwana. On 11.08.2007, he had a medical emergency
as he suffered severe chest pain/cardiac arrest and as a first
choice, was immediately taken to the very same hospital where he
works.
[2024:RJ-JD:9411] (2of 6) [CW-9571/2008]
2.2. However, on 12.08.2007 (Sunday), the doctors at
Government Bangar Hospital, Deedwana found the case of the
petitioner to be of critical nature and referred him to SMS
Hospital, Jaipur. But, as it turned out, being a Sunday ,there was
no surgery being performed in SMS hospital. Given the emergent
condition of the petitioner, his family immediately took him
instead to Soni Hospital, Jaipur.
2.3 The petitioner remained admitted from 12.08.2007 to
16.08.2007 at Soni Hospital, Jaipur. He underwent primary
Angioplasty and Stenting to LAD and subsequently on persistence
of angina, PTCA + Stenting to RCA was also done.
2.4 The petitioner rejoined his duties on 21.01.2008. He
submitted an application to the respondent No.2 along with the
medical bills for his aforesaid treatment, which were to the tune of
Rs.1,53,635/- (final bill attached with the petition) and requested
that the same may be reimbursed. Vide impugned note dated
19.02.2008, his request was declined. Hence, the instant writ
petition.
3. Defense taken in the reply to the petition is that the
petitioner submitted an application for reimbursement of medical
bills without annexing medical bills. However, respondent No.2
still sent the application to the CM&HO, Nagaur for necessary
instructions. Due to the incomplete bills submitted by the
petitioner, the application was returned to him for removing the
objections, but petitioner did not re-submit the application after
removing defects, and straightaway, filed writ petition before this
Court. Thus, despite giving instructions regarding completing the
[2024:RJ-JD:9411] (3of 6) [CW-9571/2008]
medical bills, petitioner did not pay any heed. Stand taken is that
the respondents have, in fact, not denied reimbursement of the
medical claim of the petitioner. lf the petitioner had submitted
complete bills for expenses, then the respondents would certainly
proceed in accordance with the rules. It is his own fault that he
did not submit complete bills and straightway filed a pre mature
writ petition, which is liable to be dismissed.
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the learned counsel
for the petitioner and gone through the record and, shall now
proceed to render my opinion thereupon.
5. What emerges from the pleadings is a clear open and shut
case, wherein the Department has taken an unequivocal stand
that there is no quibble about the admissibility of the medical
reimbursement qua the treatment undergone by the petitioner.
What seems to be the impediment is that, despite being asked,
the petitioner did not submit his medical bills. The said medical
bills have been appended alongwith the petition herein. Reference
may be had to the two final bills (one amounting to Rs.1,42,000/-
& other for Rs.11,655/-) dated 16.08.2007 & 15.10.2007,
respectively, (Annex.4), which have been issued by Soni Hospital,
Jaipur.
6. The petitioner vide his application/representation dated
21.01.2008 (Annex.3), had approached the Chief Medical Health
Officer (CMHO), Didwana, for reimbursement as per the applicable
Rules. The said application was entertained and initially, vide a
note dated 22.01.2008, an objection was raised that the original
bills be submitted by the petitioner. However, subsequently, vide
[2024:RJ-JD:9411] (4of 6) [CW-9571/2008]
impugned note/objection dated 19.02.2008 raised by CMHO that,
originals were returned since the treatment was meted out at a
private hospital and, same was held to be not reimbursable. It
was also stated that even the bills are not complete.
7. Qua entitlement of reimbursement for treatment in
emergency from a private hospital, learned counsel for the
petitioner, in course of his arguments, relies on the various
judgments viz. Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.-
(1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 336; Shobha Devi
Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Anr. 2022 SCC Online Raj
2868; Thomas T. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.3749/2006 passed by this Court.
8. Adverting, now to the defense as pleaded in the reply filed with
this court, it is evident that no explicit stand has been taken
therein regarding the petitioner's not being entitled to
reimbursement for treatment at a private hospital. However, the
impugned note/order dated 19.02.2008 from the CMHO, which is
inter alia under challenge herein, same expressly states the
rejection of his claim is on account of private treatment.
9. It is noteworthy that the petitioner, in paragraph 4 of the
petition, has affirmed undergoing treatment from 12.08.2007 to
16.08.2007 at Soni Hospital, Jaipur, involving Primary Angioplasty
and Stenting to LAD, and subsequent PTCA + Stenting to RCA due
to Persistence of Angina. Additionally, he has expressly mentioned
that the medical bills are annexed with the petition as Annex.4. In
corresponding para of the reply, aside from a mere bald assertion
that the petitioner did not submit the bills, the contents of Para-4
[2024:RJ-JD:9411] (5of 6) [CW-9571/2008]
of petition have not been disputed. Thus, considering the stance
taken in the reply, the petition merits acceptance to the extent of
seeking reimbursement for treatment received at a private
hospital. It is so ordered.
10. In the parting, I may hasten to add that reference in
particular may be had to Supreme Court judgment rendered in
Surjit Singh (supra), and as also rightly relied by learned counsel
for the petitioner in the context of right to self-preservation being
a findamental right. Case of the petitioner is squarely covered by
the ratio enunciated therein. As held by Supreme Court, it is
settled position in law that the right to health and self-
preservation by medical treatment in an emergency is akin to the
right to life, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
This right is fundamental, sacred, precious, and inviolable.
Employees of State have a right to take steps to preserve their
own lives when faced with a life threat in an emergency.
Accordingly, given the facts of the instant case, the petitioner
herein had the right to take steps for his self-preservation,
including seeking emergency medical treatment without having to
wait for prior sanction and/or waiting for his turn in a government
hospital or an authorised hospital instead of rushing to a private
hosiptal i.e. Soni Hospital, Jaipur herein, in view of apparent
threat to life at the relevant time. As an upshot, I see no reason,
why the petitioner be not accorded the benefit of reimbursement
of his medical bills.
[2024:RJ-JD:9411] (6of 6) [CW-9571/2008]
11. The respondents are thus directed to verify the medical bills
contained in Annex.4 of the petition and carry out the further
necessary exercise of reimbursement in accordance with the
applicable service rules within a period of two months from today.
Payment be reimbursed along with applicable interest, as
admissible under the service rules, with effect from the date, the
same was due to the petitioner.
12. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
188-/Jitender//-
Whether fit for reporting- Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
