JUDGMENT
R.L. Anand, J.
1. Shri Mam Chand Bhardwaj, a Sanskrit Teacher, has filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned letters Annexures P-5, P-6, P-7 and P-9 and also for the issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to make payment of Rs. 1,24,246.80 to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 18% as the petitioner has incurred the amount on his treatment, represented by bills P-2, P-3 and P-4. The petitioner has further sought the directions of this Court to pay him the fixed medical allowance to the tune of Rs. 125/- per month, which is given to an employee for treatment of casual disease.
2. The case set up by the petitioner is that he was admitted in the PGI Chandigarh on 18.11.1995. On 21.11.1995, he was operated upon for kidney transplantation which was donated to him by his wife. The petitioner remained as indoor patient under the supervision of Nephrologist in the PGI from 18.11.1995 to
4.12.1995. He spent Rs. 2.50 lacs but an amount of Rs. 66,917.30 was sanctioned on 3.2.1997 as expenses incurred as an indoor patient. After the discharge from the hospital the petitioner was advised to take essential life saving drugs to prevent the rejection of his kidney and certificate was also issued on 2.11.1996 certifying that the drugs being taken by the petitioner are essential for his life. The petitioner submitted the bill on 7.9.1996 (Annexure P-2), for a sum of Rs. 67,228.70 on account of the expenses incurred by him as an outdoor patient from 8.3.1996 to 5.9.1996. The petitioner submitted another bill of Rs. 50,284.50 concerning his treatment with effect from 3.10.1996 to 26.12.1996 as an outdoor patient. The petitioner had slopped getting fixed medical allowance from April 1996. Yet another bill was submitted by the petitionerto the tune of Rs. 6,833.60 on account of expenses incurred on him as an ouidoor patient. The bill was returned by the Government on 7.1.1999. The previous bills were also returned by the respondents vide letters Annexures P-6 and P-7 on 1.2.1999 and 243.1999, respectively. The petitioner again submitted that bills on 10.12.1999 but the respondents are not making any payment against those bills. This action on the part of the respondents is discriminatory and is liable to be set aside. Hence the present writ petition.
3. Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. A joint written statement was filed by respondents No. 3, 4 and 5. In para No. 9 of the written statement it has been stated that petitioner has not been allowed/sanctioned any reimbursement as an outdoor patient and the respondent is not the competent authority. Thus, Ihe claim of the petitioner is being denied on the ground that petitioner remained as an outdoor patient and, therefore, he is not entitled to the medical reimbursement of the bills after his discharge from the hospital.
4. No separate written statement was filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 but a short reply has been filed in which it has been stated that these respondents adopt the written statements of respondents No. 3, 4 and 5.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case and I am of the considered opinion that this writ must succeed.
6. It is the common case of the parties that the petitioner remained as an outdoor patient and an operation was performed upon him for kidney transplantation. A patient cannot remain for all times to come in the hospital. He has to be discharged. The rest of the treatment has to be taken by such like patient at his house under the supervision of the doctors. Periodical follow-up is necessary for such patients so that these types of patients may not get danger to their lives. The drugs which the petitioner had been taking at his house, is under the guidance of the doctors who conducted the operation upon him. Though the petitioner remained as an outdoor patient but his treatment was
integral and inseparable with the treatment which he undertook when he remained in the hospital. Therefore, the Government is bound to reimburse the medical bills of the petitioner and he cannot be treated as an outdoor patient.
7. It is the common case of the parties that the petitioner is a Government employee and is entitled to the medical reimbursement, according to the Government rules. This point was also considered by the Division bench of this Court in a case reported as Ravi Kant v. The State of Haryana and others, 1998(3) RSJ 705 : 1998(4) SCT 206 (P&H)(DB) and it was held that the claimant will be entitled to be reimbursed the medical expenses which he might have incurred as an outdoor patient for his treatment if it was certified by his authorised medical attendant that the said treatment was absolutely necessary for keeping him alive and there was no substitute for the medicines which he was getting for his treatment.
8. Resultantly, this writ is allowed, the impugned letters Annexures P-5, P- 6, P-7 and P-9, are hereby quashed and the directions are given to the respondents to make the payment of Rs. 1,24,246.80 to the petitioner within one month from the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the petitioner shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12%. Direct ions are also given to the respondents to pay the fixed medical allowance to the petitioner as per rules besides the amount of Rs. 1,24,246.80. There shall be no order as to costs.
9. Petition allowed.