- (1.) Petitioner is a Government servant. As per rules, he is entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on himself and his family members. It is his case that on 26.5.2004 he got his wife admitted, in an emergent situation, in Batra Nursing Home and Heart Care Centre, Sonepat. After conducting necessary tests, it was found necessary to perform angioplasty upon his wife. The petitioner opted for a package, being offered by the above said Institution. In fact angioplasty with stenting was done and petitioner's wife was discharged from hospital on 28.5.2004. Cost of the package, for three days, was Rs. 95,000/- including room rent and medicines. Thereafter the petitioner submitted his claim for reimbursement of the medical expenses. When it was not cleared, petitioner filed this writ petition.
(2.) In response to the notice issued by this Court, reply has been filed by the respondents wherein it has been stated that it appears that the petitioner's wife had not gone for any angioplasty/stenting etc. rather it was a routine medical check up as she was discharged from the hospital within three days. Further that as she got treatment from a private hospital, the petitioner was not entitled to get the requisite benefit claimed by him. It was further said that the hospital was not in the approved list of the State of Haryana and further that the case of the petitioner's wife was not recommended by any civil hospital for emergency treatment as stated by the petitioner. It was stated that claim of the petitioner was not acceptable.
(3.) After hearing counsel for the parties, we feel that stand taken by the respondent-State is totally unjustified. It is apparent from document Annexure P-1 that the petitioner's wife was admitted in the above said private hospital in an emergency condition. Certificate (Annexure P-1) reads thus : "This is to certify that. Mrs. Rajbala suffered from CAD, AC Coronary Syndrome, CAG 99% LCS Stenosis and was admitted in this hospital on 26.5.2004 is an emergency situation. Her admission and treatment in this hospital was absolutely essential otherwise her disease could have been fatal." Regarding treatment of the petitioner's wife following certificate (Annexure P-2) was given by the hospital referred to above : "Diagnosis. CAD AC Coronary Syndrome, CAG 90% LCX Stenosis PTCA/Stent to LCX performed. History 46 years female non hypertensive, non diabetic normolipidaemic non smoker suffered from recurred H/o pain chest radiating to both arm ass c ghabrahat and sweating for 4 days. Treated at Gohana with no response. O/E 110/70. 80/MM chest clear S1 S2 normally heard. ECG showed non specific ST T changes. After proper discussion c attendants. CAG performed by Dr. J.C. Mohan D.M. (Cardiology). It showed 99% mid LCX stenosis PTCA/Stent to LCX was performed. Post procedure stay was uneventful." It is coming out from document Annexure P-3 that treatment was taken under a package. The detail of the expenses are given in certificate/receipt (Annexure P-3). Annexure P-4 is a copy of the receipt of payment of money. A further certificate has been issued stating that the petitioner's wife was treated in the hospital on account of emergency and she remained indoor patient from 26.5.2004 to 28.5.2004. It is apparent from the record that the case of the petitioner was referred for reimbursement of expenses by Principal of the School where he was working. The petitioner has also filed an affidavit (Annexure P-8) stating that lie got his wife admitted on account of emergency, in the private nursing home, otherwise she would have died.;