B.K.Joshi vs State & Ors on 19 August, 2008

                                        1

           S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1615/2007


                              B.K.Joshi
                                  v.
                      State of Rajasthan & Ors.


         Date of Order             ::               19th August, 2008



                HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR


Mr. P.K.Lohra, for the petitioner.
Mr. Rameshwar Dave, for the respondents.
                         ....



               The      petitioner,             a     retired          government

servant,       suffered       Cardiac       problem         in   the    month   of

January, 2006 and, therefore, he consulted with the

doctors    at        S.M.S.    Hospital,            Jaipur.      His    case    was

referred for examination by a penal of experts and the

penal     of    experts       recommended            for       Coronary    Artery

Bypass    Grafting.        The   Medical            Board      approved    bypass
surgery at Escorts Health Institute & Research Centre,

New     Delhi.        On      25.3.2006             the     petitioner         felt

breathlessness and chest pain, therefore, he was taken

to Escorts Goyal Heart Centre, Jodhpur wherein he was

admitted and operated for bypass surgery. The surgery

was     made    on     28.3.2006.           A   sum       of     Rs.1,25,000/-,

incurred in medical treatment at Escorts Goyal Heart

Centre, Jodhpur and that was claimed for reimbursement

as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services

(Medical Attendance) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred

to as "the Rules 1970"), however, no payment of same
                                           2

was made on the count that the hospital where the

petitioner        underwent         surgery         is     not    an    empaneled

hospital. Being aggrieved by denial for reimbursement

of   medical       expenses,         this          petition       for       writ     is

preferred.



             The contention of counsel for the petitioner

is   that    the        petitioner            suffered          chest       pain     on

25.3.2006    and,        therefore,           he    was    taken       to    Escorts

Goyal Heart Centre, Jodhpur and looking to emergency a

bypass surgery was made. It is asserted that in such

emergent circumstances, it was not possible to search

an empaneled hospital as the basic need was of saving

the life.



             In     reply       to       the       writ     petition         it     is

reiterated that the hospital where the petitioner has

undertaken bypass surgery is not an empaneled one and,

therefore, he        is    not entitled              for    reimbursement of

medical expenses.



             This       Court   in       the       case    of    Thomas      T.     Vs.

State   of    Rajasthan         &    Ors.,          SBCivil      Writ       Petition

No.3749/2006,       decided         on    14th      September,         2006,       held

that in the circumstances when Government servant is

having no option but to take immediate treatment, he

is entitled to get reimbursement of medical expenses

irrespective of the fact that whether such a hospital

is   enlisted      or    not    by       Government        of     Rajasthan         for
                                3

reimbursement   of   medical       expenses.   Similarly,   this

Court in SBCivil Writ Petition No.5683/2005, Mandal

Dutt Purohit v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on

3.10.2006, held as under:-



         "It is not at all disputed that the
         petitioner has undergone an angiography and
         cardiac artery bypass at Goyal Hospital &
         Research   Centre  Pvt.   Ltd.,   Jodhpur   on
         9.9.2004. The petitioner on facing an acute
         cardiac pain was admitted to the hospital
         concerned on 4.9.2004 and under a competent
         medical advice he was subjected to emergent
         angiography and coronary artery bypass. In
         such crucial circumstances the petitioner was
         having no option but to undergo the treatment
         wherever the treatment was available at
         earliest. It shall be highly unjust to expect
         from a person battling for life to proceed
         for a hospital recognised by the Government
         of Rajasthan for getting the medical expenses
         reimbursed. The prime consideration in such
         situation is to bring the life in safe zone,
         beyond the cost consideration. The government
         has   provided  statutory   medical   benefits
         including reimbursement of expenses incurred
         in treatment. The main object behind it is to
         extend a helping hand to its employees
         suffering ailment, the place of treatment is
         a    secondary    consideration.     If    the
         reimbursement is made absolutely dependent to
         the place of treatment then it shall not only
         be arbitrary but shall also be contrary to
         the fundamental right for protection of
         life."
                                      4

               In    the   instant    matter      too   the    petitioner

underwent bypass surgery in emergent circumstances and

as   such      the     denial   of       reimbursement        of    medical

expenses as per the provisions of the Rules of 1970 is

unjust. The respondents should have made reimbursement

of the medical expenses to the petitioner as per the

provisions of Rule 4(e) of the Rules of 1970.



               The petition for wit, therefore, is allowed.

The respondents are directed to reimburse the medical

expenses to the petitioner as per the provisions of

Rule 4(e) of the Rules of 1970. The petitioner shall

also be entitled for interest @ 6.5% per annum on the

amount    of    reimbursement        from   the    date   he       submitted

medial bills.



                                               ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J.

kkm/ps.