- (1.) Claim in the present writ petition is for quashing the order dated February 10, 2005 (Annexure P-4) vide which claim of petitioner Ranbir Singh Kundu (since deceased and represented by Mrs. Santosh Devi-widow, Mrs. Seema Narwal-daughter, Mr. Rohit Kundu-son and Miss Nidhi Kundu- daughter), for medical reimbursement on account of treatment of his son, namely, Rohit Kundu from Delhi Heart & Lung Institute, New Delhi, has been rejected and for issuing a direction to the respondents to make payment of Rs. 98,812/- incurred by the petitioner in connection with the treatment of Rohit Kundu.
(2.) The petitioner was an employee of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board - respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent-Board) and was working as a Mandi Supervisor. Son of the petitioner, namely, Rohit Kundu, dependent upon the petitioner, suddenly fell ill on November 16, 2004 as he suffered onset of severe chest pain. He was got admitted in a nearby hospital i.e Dr. Prem Hospital, Panipat. The Doctors at Prem Hospital diagnosed that Rohit Kundu had sustained Tension Pneumothorax on left side as well as Cardio Respiratory Embracement and accordingly Inter-costal Tube Drainage (ICD) was done and he was put on mechanical ventilation support due to sudden respiratory arrest. As the patient could not recover and his condition was deteriorating, a team of Doctors (Specialists) was summoned from Delhi Heart & Lung Institute, New Delhi, who examined the patient and advised to shift him immediately to the said hospital. Petitioner also got the same advice from the attending Doctors of Dr. Prem Hospital, Panipat. Accordingly, the patient was shifted to Delhi Heart & Lung Institute, New Delhi. Son of the petitioner remained admitted in the Delhi Heart & Lung Institute, New Delhi, from November 17, 2004 to December 01, 2004 and a sum of Rs. 98,812/- was incurred on his medical treatment. The petitioner submitted claim of medical reimbursement of the aforesaid expenses to respondent-Board through proper channel. However, the respondent-Board rejected the claim of the petitioner for medical reimbursement on the ground that the treatment had not been taken in a hospital recognized by the State of Haryana.
(3.) On notice, the respondents contested the claim of the petitioner for medical reimbursement on the ground that the State of Haryana has framed a policy as contained in letter No. 2.10/90/H.B.III dated November 30, 1993 (Annexure P-1) for reimbursement of medical bills of indoor special treatment of its employees/officers/pensioners/family pensioners and their dependents in the approved hospitals. As in the present case the petitioner had taken treatment in Dr. Prem Hospital, Panipat, and Delhi Heart & Lung Institute, New Delhi, which were not on the approved list of the State of Haryana for treatment of its employees and their dependents, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to medical reimbursement in this case.;