JUDGMENT
Hemant Gupta, J.
1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 26-04-2004 (Annexure P7) whereby the medical reimbursement claim amounting to Rs. 49,934.38 paise on account of treatment taken by the petitioner from Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute, New Delhi was rejected.
2. The petitioner, who is working as a junior Engineer in Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, was referred by the Civil Surgeon, Jind for consultation to Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi. However, Dr. Manish Aggarwal, Consultant with Indraprastha Apollo Hospital further referred the petitioner for treatment to Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘PSRI’) as the procedure required upon the petitioner could not be performed at Indraprastha Apollo Hospital. As a consequence of such reference, the petitioner was operated upon by Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute. For the expenses on the medical treatment, the petitioner submitted his bills for reimbursement. However, reimbursement of amount of Rs. 49,934.38 paise was declined on the ground that the petitioner has taken treatment from Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute, which is a private hospital and not recognized by the State Government.
3. In the reply, it has been pointed out that the petitioner has not taken prior permission from the Chief Medical Officer of the Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Panchkula before approaching Inderprastha Apollo Hospital and subsequently at the Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to medical reimbursement. It is also pointed out that Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute is not recognized by the State Government or Nigam. Therefore, the expenses incurred by the petitioner are not reimbursable.
4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the stand of the respondents. It is apparent from the documents produced on record that the petitioner was referred by the Civil Surgeon, Jind to Inderprastha Apollo Hospital for the consultation and treatment of disease Renal Stone. It was the Consultant of Inderprastha Apollo Hospital, who has further referred the petitioner to Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute as the procedure on the petitioner could not be performed at the said Hospital. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has approached Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute without proper reference. In fact, the PSRI would be deemed to be an agent of Apollo Hospital. The argument that the prior approval of the Chief Medical Officer of the Nigam was required is wholly immaterial. Once the petitioner has been referred by the Civil Surgeon to Apollo Hospital, it was not necessary for the petitioner to seek any prior approval from the Chief Medical Officer. Learned Counsel for the respondents could not justify the purpose of seeking approval from the Chief Medical Officer of the Nigam when the Civil Surgeon has referred the petitioner to Apollo Hospital. Therefore, the argument that the prior approval from the Chief Medical Officer of the Nigam was required is wholly irrelevant and not feasible keeping in view the urgency in which the petitioner was required to be treated.
Still further, the petitioner was referred for treatment to Inderprastha Apollo Hospital and it was the doctor at Inderprastha Apollo Hospital, who has referred the petitioner for further treatment to Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute. Therefore, the treatment availed by the petitioner from Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute is in fact a treatment authorized by Inderprastha Apollo Hospital as well.
5. In view of the said fact, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner vide order Annexure P7 is wholly illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable. The same is set aside. The respondent-Nigam is directed to reimburse the medical expenses as per the rates of AIIMS or P.G.I. whichever is higher within one month from today. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.