Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dr. Madha Ram Bishnoi vs State And Ors (2025:Rj-Jd:14163) on 17 March, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:14163]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3755/2017
Dr. Madha Ram Bishnoi S/o Shri Prema Ram, R/o 17/e-57,
Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Medical And Health Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Pensioners Medical Fund,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Treasury Officer, Rural Jodhpur, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Mr. Madan Lal.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harshwardhan Singh for
Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
17/03/2025
1. Petitioner herein is before this Court seeking a direction to
the respondents to reimburse his remaining medical bills amount
pursuant to bills (Annex.2 and 3) along with interest as per
applicable service Rules.
2. Relevant facts as pleaded in the case are that the petitioner
retired from service while serving as a Senior Medical Officer on
31.07.2010. On 31.11.2015, the petitioner's wife suffered from
vertigo and severe headache and was taken for emergency
surgery at Medipulse Hospital, Jodhpur. She underwent surgery on
01.12.2015 but could not fully recover and was discharged on
07.12.2015, with a recommendation for re-surgery. For this
surgery, the petitioner incurred expenses amounting to Rs.
1,33,562/-. On 31.01.2016, the petitioner and his wife went to
Mumbai, where she suddenly experienced the same condition and
[2025:RJ-JD:14163] (2 of 4) [CW-3755/2017]
was admitted to a hospital in Mumbai as an emergency case. She
was operated on 01.02.2016, and the petitioner incurred an
amount of Rs. 2,69,013/- for the surgery. After recovery, she was
discharged on 06.02.2016.
2.1. Upon their return, the petitioner submitted medical bills to
the Treasury Officer, Rural Treasury, Jodhpur, for reimbursement
under the Rules of 2013, along with the requisite documents. The
respondents pointed out deficiencies in the bills through a
communication dated 16.08.2016 and in view thereof, sanctioned
only Rs.62,674/- in total, against the total amount of
Rs.4,02,575/- incurred by the petitioner. On 17.01.2017, the
petitioner submitted a representation, but to no avail. Hence the
petitioner herein seeking the remaining amount of Rs.3,39,901/-.
3. In response to the writ petition inter alia following relevant
stand has been taken in the reply:-
"1. With due respect it is respectfully submitted that
Petitioner's wife had undergone surgery outside the state in
alleged emergent situation, while he went to Mumbai for tour
and taken treatment in Bombay Hospital, Mumbai as well as in
Medipulse Hospital Jodhpur. Petitioner filed medical bills of
Rs. 4,02,575/- for reimbursement. As per Para 4 of scheme of
Rajasthan State Pensioners Medical Concession Scheme, 2014
(Here in after referred as 'Scheme of 2014') and as per
Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Reimbursement) Rules 2013
(Here in after referred as 'Rules of 2013') as per appendix xiii
and Rule 11 of Rules of 2013 Rs. 35313/ was reimbursed for
treatment in Medipulse hospital, Jodhpur. Similarly according
to Rule 10 (2) and 11 of The Rules of 2013 and appendix xiii,
the 27361/- in total 62,674/- was paid to the petitioner and
same was received by the petitioner without any objection. In
this manner maximum permissible medical reimbursement is
Rs. 62,674/- which has been paid to petitioner and petitioner
has received this amount. Therefore, now no claim survives
which is payable to the petitioner. Hence, there is no cause of
action to maintain the present writ petition in accordance with
Scheme of 2014, Rules of 2013 and in light of law affirmed by
Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2278/2011 (@ SLP)
(C) No. 2888/2008 State of Rajasthan vs. Mahesh Kumar
[2025:RJ-JD:14163] (3 of 4) [CW-3755/2017]
Sharma (2011) 4 SCC 257 dated 02.03.2011, laid down in
State of Punjab vs. Ram Lubhya Bagga reported in (1998) 4
SCC 117 and State of Karnataka vs. R. Vivekanada Swami
(2008) 5 SCC 328 in which it was held that the reimbursement
is liable to be made up to the extent of provisions and further
in light of decision of Hon'ble Division Bench in case of Anil
Kumar Suroliya as well as D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ)
No. 858/2007 in Rajasthan State & Anr. vs. Mitthu Lal Gupta.
The reimbursement to the claim of petitioner was made in
accordance with aforementioned legal position. The Relevant
Copy of Appendix-xiii is submitted herewith and marked as
Annexure R/1.
xxx xxx xxx"
4. It transpires that the respondents have already sanctioned
an amount of Rs.62,674/-, however, the full reimbursement was
not allowed on the ground that this is the only amount for which
the petitioner is entitled under the applicable rules.
5. On a Court query, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
points out that petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of the
amount as per Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Reimbursement)
Rules 2013. Therefore, the respondents be directed to consider
the claim of the petitioner under Rules, ibid.
6. In this respect, reference may be had to a judgment
rendered by me in a similar situation in the case of Kesra Ram
Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.9571/2008, decided on 23.02.2024. For ready reference,
relevant of the same being apposite is reproduced hereinbelow:
"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
[2025:RJ-JD:14163] (4 of 4) [CW-3755/2017]
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. XXXXXX
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."
7. As an upshot, the instant writ petition is allowed. The
respondents are directed to reimburse the medical expenses
incurred by the petitioner on the rates prescribed under the
Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Reimbursement) Rules, 2013,
along with interest as per the rules, ibid.
8. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
134-Rmathur- Sumit/-
Whether Fit for Reporting:- Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
