BALIA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 12. 4. 1999 passed by the learned single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1135 of 1997 filed by the petitioner-appellant whereby the writ petition has been dismissed.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are: that the petitioner- appellant at the relevant time was working as Upper Division Clerk in the Office of District Transport Officer, Hanumanagarh. After applying four days leave, he went to Delhi on 18. 6. 1996 alongwith his wife for some domestic work. This fact was stated in his leave application while in Delhi that on 19. 6. 1996, the petitioner's wife developed some cardiac trouble and, therefore, she was taken to Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, Delhi, an institution which is recognised for treatment of complicated heart ailments by the State of Rajasthan where she was admitted in Emergency with a diagnosis of DCM LBBB and (gross) congestive cardiac failure and EF 20%. She was stablized and her cardiac cath study, was performed and was advised for her open heart surgery costing approximately Rs. 2 Lakhs. THE petitioner-appellant moved an application from Delhi on the next day informing the concerned authorities that due to sudden cardiac problem, his wife has been admitted to Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, Delhi with complete details of treatment. He also moved an application for necessary sanction of an advance payment of Rs. 2 Lacs for medical treatment of his wife from Delhi on 25. 6. 1996 but the same was not granted to him. Since the health condition of petitioner's wife was deteriorating day by day and therefore, her open heart surgery was performed on 9. 7. 1996 and the total expenditure on medicines and operation came to Rs. 2,06,860/ -. Unfortunately the operation of the petitioner's wife failed and she died on 12. 7. 1996 in the Hospital itself. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application before the concerned authorities for reimbursement of expenses incurred for the medical treatment of his wife at Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, Delhi alongwith the Certificate (Annex. 7) dated 5. 7. 1996 issued by the Executive Director, Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, New-Delhi certifying that the wife of the petitioner was admitted to the Emergency Room on 19. 6. 1996 in the state of a gross congestive cardiac failure and subsequent evaluation based on echocardiagraphic and coronary angiography revealed `diolated Cardiomyopathy' and therefore, she was placed for `reduction Ventriculoplasty' a newly established surgical procedure which may help in improving her clinical status and ejection fraction. However, the petitioner's claim for reimbursement of Rs. 2,06,860/- was rejected vide Order (Annexure/10 ). Only ground disclosed in the communication is that since the petitioner has not got the treatment of his wife in a Government Hospital, the expenses incurred by him on the treatment of his wife cannot be reimbursed. Aggrieved with the refusal to reimburse the expenses incurred on treatment of his wife vide (Annex. 10), the petitioner-appellant filed the aforesaid writ petition before this Court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondents for reimbursement of Rs. 2,06,860/-, which was spent by him on the treatment of his wife. A reply to the show cause notice was filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it was contended that the petitioner ought to have contacted the Government Hospital either of the Central Government or of the State Government before availing of treatment in Escorts Heart and Research Centre, New-Delhi. It was submitted that as per Rule 7 (1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1970 (for short `the Rules'), the Govt. employee or his family member will have to obtain the certificate that no treatment of the disease is available in the State. Under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 7 list of Hospitals outside the State is given and as per Sub-Rule (4), the reimbursement of the amount is to be made on submission of the original receipts, vouchers duly attested by the Medical Officer, who had referred the case. The petitioner has not followed the procedure required under the Rules and, therefore, he is not entitled to reimbursement. However, the fact that Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre is an approved Institute/hospital for the purpose of treatment of heart ailment outside the State of Rajasthan is not denied. It was also stated that Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre is not authorised to give certificate to the effect that no such medical treatment is available in the State of Rajasthan and that of the Delhi State. Such certificate can only be given by the Medical Officer of the Central/ State Govt. Hospitals. It was submitted that in Delhi, there is a Govt. Institute known as All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New-Delhi, (for short `aiims') which is a Govt. Hospital. According to the respondents, if the certificate would have been obtained from the said AIIMS, then there was no reason to deny the claim of reimbursement to the petitioner. No serious dispute has been raised about the fact that petitioner was spending his leave at Delhi where his wife fell sick and she was given medical attendance and treatment at Escorts Heart Institute and that she underwent open heart surgery as indoor patient at that Institute and that ultimately she died on 12. 7. 1996. After considering the aforesaid submissions, the learned single Judge vide his Order dated 12. 4. 1999 dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner holding that a person can seek reimbursement if the case has been referred to the Hospital outside the State by a competent Medical Authority of the State and in case, the Patient suffers the ailment outside the State of Rajasthan, he must obtain such a certificate from the Government Hospital i. e. the Authority mentioned in Rule 6 (2) of the Rules. The decisions of this Court in Khuman Singh Mehta vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1) and Shyam Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. (2) were considered to be not applicable to the facts of the present case.
(3.) DISSATISFIED with the impugned order dated 12. 4. 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the petitioner has filed the present special appeal. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-appellant that petitioner's wife suffered heart- ailment at New-Delhi, outside the State of Rajasthan. Therefore, there was no occasion for him to have obtained a certificate from the Principal of any Medical Colleges or Director, Medical & Health Services on the basis of the opinion of the Authorised Medical Attendant to the effect that treatment of a particular disease from which the patient was suffering was not available in any Government Hospital in the State and it is absolutely essential for the recovery of the patient to have treatment at a Hospital outside the State. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that self preservation by obtaining appropriate medical relief in emergency situation is a part of fundamental right to life guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and if a Government servant or any member of his family depending on him, who is otherwise entitled to reimbursement of the medical expenses obtains such medical assistance in emergency outside the State, he is entitled to be reimbursement of his actual medical expenses incurred on the treatment of the patient and reimbursement cannot be denied to him merely on the basis of the procedural requirement. Mr. P. R. Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others (3) and State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Mohinder Singh Chawla etc. (4), Shyam Singh vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (supra) and Khumansingh Mehta vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra ). ;