High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Smt Shail Bala Mittal vs In My Opinion on 19 February, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt Shail Bala Mittal vs In My Opinion on 19 February, 2009
C.W.P No. 10745 of 2007                                    ::1::

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH



                                      C.W.P No. 10745 of 2007
                                      Date of decision : February 19, 2009


Smt Shail Bala Mittal,

                                            ...... Petitioner (s)

                         v.

The State of Haryana and others
                                            ...... Respondent(s)

                               ***

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

***

Present : Mr. Ravi Verma, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana

***

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

***

AJAY TEWARI, J

The petitioner who was a retired pensioner fell down and was

thereafter admitted to Fortis Hospital, Noida where she got both her knees

replaced. Her medical reimbursement case was rejected on the ground that

her treatment at the aforesaid hospital was not certified to be an emergency.

It may be noticed that the latest policy of the Haryana

Government dated 6.5.2005 on the subject broadly envisages that if

treatment is taken from a government hospital it shall be fully re-imbursed

and if treatment is taken from an approved hospital then the employee

would be liable to be reimbursed at the PGI/AIIMS rates plus 75% of the
C.W.P No. 10745 of 2007 ::2::

balance, if any. The third category as per this policy is of un-approved

hospital and any treatment taken therefrom is reimbursable at PGI rates

with, however, the condition that the same should be certified to be an

emergency treatment.

Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division

Bench judgment of this Court in Mahipal Singh vs State of Haryana and

others, 2008(2) SCT 592, wherein it was held as follows :-

“8. xx xx xx

In a case where the life of a human being is at stake, it is

too technical to require such a person to hunt for a list of

the approved hospitals and then decide which hospital to

go in emergency situation. Sometimes such hospitals

may not be able to accommodate the patient and at that

time the attendant is not expected to first look into the

list of approved/recognized hospitals for medical

reimbursement and then proceed for treatment. Such

procedures should not be expected to be followed in an

emergency by the attendant of the patient. If such

regulations are applied so strictly, it would result in a

disastrous situation and the patient may die. The act

committed in an emergency should not be weighed in

terms of money, especially when human life is at stake.

The provision of free medical treatment or

reimbursement in lieu thereof being a beneficial act of

the welfare State for its employees, the rules/instructions

have to be construed liberally in favour of the employees,
C.W.P No. 10745 of 2007 ::3::

for granting them the relief. The authorities are not

supposed to adopt a wooden attitude and stick to

technicalities while dealing with human problems. There

can be no mathematical precision while dealing with

human beings……..”

Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on a Single Bench

judgment of this Court in Roshani Devi vs State of Haryana and others,

2002(4) RSJ 364, wherein it was held as follows :-

“5. ……. We all know that the treatment is a matter of

confidence between the patient and the doctor. Apollo

Hospital is also a hospital of repute in the Northern India.

It provides specialised treatment. Some specialties are

peculiar to a particular hospital. If a patient opts to go to

Apollo Hospital in order to get the genuine treatment,

expenditure on getting such treatment should not be

scuttled down on the technical ground that he had got the

treatment from a hospital which is not recognised.

Health is equally important not only to the public servant

but also to his family members.”

In my opinion, the present case is covered by the binding

precedents reproduced above. In the circumstances, this writ petition is

disposed of with a direction to the respondents to release medical re-

imbursement to the petitioner at PGI/AIIMS rates within two months from

the receipt of a certified copy of this order.

                                            ( AJAY TEWARI           )
February     19, 2009.                           JUDGE
`kk'
 C.W.P No. 10745 of 2007   ::4::