- (1.) The petitioner retired as a Commercial Assistant from the office of Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited, Sirsa (hereinafter referred to as 'the Nigam') on May 31, 2007. Wife of the petitioner Smt. Nirmala Devi, who was suffering from 'Chondrosarcoma @ Scapula (Cancer), took treatment from Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the P.G.I), Bombay Hospital, Mumbai/Bombay Hospital & Research Centre, Mumbai. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner was not in a position to consult the Civil Surgeon, Sirsa and was forced to get the medical treatment from P.G.I, Bombay Hospital, Mumbai/ Bombay Hospital & Research Centre, Mumbai. Petitioner submitted the medical reimbursement claims to the Nigam, which were not reimbursed. He made various representations for reimbursement of medical claims, but to no effect.
(2.) Claim in the present writ petition is for quashing the orders dated November 30, 2005, January 24, 2006 and March 22, 2006 (Annexures, P-6, P-9 and P-9/A, respectively) whereby medical reimbursement on account of the treatment of the wife of the petitioner from P.G.I, Bombay Hospital, Mumbai/ Bombay Hospital & Research Centre, Mumbai has been declined and for issuing a direction to the Nigam to reimburse the amount of Rs. 2,58,573/- incurred by him in this connection.
(3.) On notice, the Nigam contested the writ petition on the ground that the claim of the petitioner demanding the reimbursement of the amount of Rs. 2,58,573/- spent by him on his wife's treatment is wholly misconceived inasmuch as he is getting Fixed Medical Allowance as per the policy of the Nigam and, therefore, is not entitled to claim reimbursement of the amount spent on treatment as an Out Door Patient (O.P.D) from P.G.I. So far as treatment taken from Bombay Hospital, Mumbai/Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre, Mumbai is concerned, it has been pleaded that such treatment for the aforesaid disease is available in the Government Hospital/Private Hospitals approved by the Nigam. Further that the amount claimed by the petitioner for his wife's treatment is highly exaggerated. It is also pleaded that the petitioner had not sought prior approval of the Chief Medical Officer/ Director Health Services for taking treatment from the approved hospital by the Nigam i.e Bombay Hospital, Mumbai, as per the requirement of Circular No. 2/296/86-IHP-II dated November 19, 1986 (Annexed with Annexure P-4). It is further submitted that the Doctor at P.G.I referred the case of petitioner's wife to All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the A.I.I.M.S'), but he took her to Bombay Hospital, Mumbai/Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre, Mumbai.;