- (1.) The decision inviting issue of medical reimbursement of half of the amount of expenses incurred by the petitioner for his life saving Live Liver Transplant operation in the present case was formulated in the interim order dated December 17, 2015 in the following terms:- "Mr. Manuja, on instructions from Dr. Shaminder Singh Kang, O/o DHS Pb. who is present in Court, submits that the facility of Live Liver Transplant was not available in AIIMS, New Delhi. The treatment was administered by the Apollo Hospital, New Delhi. The petitioner was operated on 01.01.2010. It is pointed out from the medical reimbursement policy (P-7) under the Head (b) "treatment in private hospital in the country" the reimbursement of medical expenses for treatment in private institute/hospital (of their own choice) is available provided the patient gives an undertaking that in an unambiguous terms that he will accept reimbursement of expenses incurred by him on his treatment to the level of expenditure as per rates fixed by the Director, Health & Family Welfare, Punjab for similar treatment package or actual expenditure whichever is less. The scheme approves package treatment as was in the present case. To understand the authority of the Director, Health & Family Welfare, Punjab in fixing the expenditure for "similar treatment" it is necessary that he should appear in Court to explain what is meant by the policy at page 97 of the paper-book. Similar can only mean that treatment is available elsewhere. If treatment is not available elsewhere then how does the policy work. List for the purpose on 23.12.2015. To be shown in the urgent list. Order dasti. The Director, Health & Family Welfare, Punjab to appear in Court on the next date of hearing. In the meanwhile, he may file an additional affidavit explaining the position with advance copy to Mr. S.P. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner."
(2.) Dr. Bhagmal, Director, Health Services, Punjab is present in Court. He has hardly any cogent point of view to offer to the Court which may lead to the dismissal of the petition. The option available with him of filing an additional affidavit explaining the position has not been availed. The right thus stands waived.
(3.) The brief facts necessary to be stated are that the petitioner was a Social Studies Master teaching school. In the year 2009 the petitioner developed symptoms of liver cirrhosis which is a chronic disease and a type of cancer. He was initially admitted for treatment at the Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana where the doctors advised him to undergo Liver Transplantation. The nearest hospitals where such treatment could be had were either at the Indraprastha Apollo Hospital or the Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, both in New Delhi, and the line of treatment advised was to remove the liver from a live donor and transplant it in the patient, the petitioner. The procedure involves the donor and the recipient to be operated at the same point of time, one for removal, the other for transplantation simultaneously. The petitioner was operated on January 01, 2010 and was discharged from Apollo Hospital, New Delhi, the chosen hospital, on January 22, 2010. The operations were successful. The total medical expenses incurred in the Apollo Hospital were in a sum of Rs.22,43,818/-. On return, he submitted his medical reimbursement bill together with his representation with supporting documents on February 05, 2010 for sanction by the competent authority and payment. When the amounts were not released in his favour the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by way of CWP No.938 of 2011 which was disposed of on January 19, 2011 directing the respondents to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner within two months. The respondents did not obey the order which brought COCP No.2211 of 2012 to this Court.;