M.S.Yadav vs Hvpn And Others on 19 September, 2008

CWP No. 401 of 2007                 1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH.

                        C.W.P.No. 401 of 2007
                        Date of decision 19 .9.2008


M.S.Yadav                                  ...Petitioner

                        Versus

HVPN and others                               ... Respondents.

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH

Present:     Sh. J.K. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.
             Shri Narendra Hooda, Advocate for respondents


1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ?

M.M.KUMAR, J.

The petitioner has claimed reimbursement of medical expenses

incurred by him for availing the treatment of his heart disease from Batra

Nursing Home and Heart Centre, Sonepat. He remained admitted in the

Batra Nursing Home from 18.8.2003 to 22.8.2003. He has claimed that a

sum of Rs. 1,06,000/- has been spent by him on account of treatment availed

by him. Accordingly, he submitted a bill for reimbursement of the medical

expenses. However, the respondents have approved an amount of

Rs.50,400/- by clearing the bill at AIIMS rate. A close scrutiny of the

payment made to the petitioner shows that medical bill of Rs. 55,000/- for

Coronary Angioplasty charged by the Batra Nursing Home was submitted

whereas in the AIIMS a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is charged for the afore-

mentioned treatment. For Coronary Angiography AIIMS rate is Rs. 6,000/-

as against the bill of Rs. 9,500/- charged by the Batra Nursing Home.
CWP No. 401 of 2007 2

Accordingly a sum of Rs. 51,400/- has been sanctioned by disallowing the

excessive claims. The afore-mentioned clearance of the bill at the hand of

the respondents is also supported by the policy/ instructions dated 5.3.2004

which provides for payment of medical bills in emergency treatment from

private Nursing Homes at the AIIMS rate. There is thus no discrepancy in

the reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by the petitioner nor there

is violation of any of his legal rights. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and

the same is dismissed.

                                              (M.M.Kumar)
                                                Judge



                                              (Jora Singh)
19 .9.2008                                     Judge

okg