- (1.) This writ petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 6.7.2004 with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to reimburse to the petitioner the amount of medical expenses and travelling expenses which he had actually incurred for getting treatment at Bombay Hospital, Bombay.
(2.) The case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows :- The petitioner was suffering with the disease known as Cystic Lesion Inedulla Oblongata (a case of neuro surgery) and even after giving long treatment by the doctors of Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur, the disease of the petitioner could not be cured and since the petitioner could not be operated for the same at Jodhpur, therefore, in these circumstances, for further treatment and operation, he was advised to go out where such treatment was possible. The Principal and Controller, Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur vide order dated 28.3.2003 (Annexure-1) constituted a Board for referring the petitioner for further treatment outside Jodhpur. After due examination, the Board vide letter dated 29.3.2003 (Annexure-2) informed the Principal and Controller, Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur that the petitioner was referred to All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi (for short "AIIMS") (Department of Neuro Surgery) for further treatment for the reason that this facility was not available at Jodhpur and even in the State. The Board also recommended that the petitioner would require two attendants to accompany him. Accordingly, through order dated 1.4.2003 (Annexure-3), the Principal and Controller, Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur referred the petitioner to AIIMS, New Delhi with one attendant. The further case of the petitioner is that his disease was serious one and required immediate surgery. The petitioner enquired at AIIMS about the waiting list and the period likely to be consumed in getting his turn for surgery. He came to know that at AIIMS, the waiting list was quite lengthy and his surgery may take place after quite long time and in that event there was every risk to his life. In such compelling circumstances, the petitioner had to get himself operated at Bombay. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application (Annexure-4) dated 2.4.2003 to the Assistant Director, Prosecution, Jodhpur (respondent No. 4) informing him that he would be leaving Jodhpur for Bombay for his surgery in Bombay Hospital, Bombay and he also informed that he would submit the leave application after returning therefrom and he also requested for grant of permission to leave headquarter and sanction of medical leave. The further case of the petitioner is that he went to Bombay where he was got admitted in Bombay Hospital on 6.4.2003. Thereafter, he was operated there and he was discharged on 17.4.2003 for observation, when the condition of the petitioner could not be improved, he was again got admitted in Bombay Hospital, Bombay on 19.4.2003 and he was discharged on 26.4.2004. The further case of the petitioner is that after having (been) operated at Bombay Hospital, Bombay, he came to Jodhpur and on 1.8.2003, he submitted an application (Annexure-5) to the Asstt. Director, Prosecution, Jodhpur (respondent No. 4) stating that he had been operated at Bombay Hospital, Bombay instead on AIIMS, New Delhi because at AIIMS, New Delhi, there was a long waiting list and operation may take time and the prayed for reimbursement of the amount incurred by him for getting operated at Bombay Hospital, Bombay. The further case of the petitioner is that thereafter, the respondent No. 4 Asstt. Director, Prosecution, Jodhpur vide letter dated 5.8.2003 (Annexure-6) asked the petitioner to submit his claim and upon this, the petitioner submitted his claim on aforesaid letter Annexure-6 on 21.8.2003 for total sum of Rs. 1,19,118.14 which includes Rs. 1,15,919.50 towards medical expenses and Rs. 3,198.64 towards travelling expenses. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 Asstt. Director, Prosecution, Jodhpur vide letter dated 28.8.2003 (Annexure-7) asked the Superintendent, AIIMS, New Delhi to inform as to what would be the expenses in case the petitioner had been operated at AIIMS, New Delhi for the alleged disease. A copy of the said letter Annexure-7 dated 28.8.2003 was also endorsed to the petitioner with the direction that the bills may be got signed from the Medical Officer and the same be submitted with necessary certificates. In reply to the said letter Annexure-7 dated 28.8.2003, the petitioner wrote a letter Annexure-8 dated 16.10.2003 to the respondent No. 4 Asstt. Director, Prosecution, Jodhpur making it clear that he got operated himself at Bombay because at AIIMS, New Delhi, there was a long waiting list and his operation would have come in turn after about 2-3 months and looking to his disease he could not wait for such a long time. The further case of the petitioner is that thereafter, the respondent No. 4 Asstt. Director, Prosecution, Jodhpur vide letter dated 20.10.2003 (Annexure- 9) forwarded the case of the petitioner to the respondent No. 3 Director, Prosecution, Jaipur for necessary sanction and reimbursement of the amount of medical expenses incurred by the petitioner for his operation at Bombay Hospital, Bombay. The further case of the petitioner is that thereafter, the office of the Director, Prosecution, Jaipur (respondent No. 3) vide letter dated 11.11.2003 (Annexure-10) asked the respondent No. 4 Asstt. Director, Prosecution, Jodhpur to send original bills and vouchers for further action and upon this, the respondent No. 4 Asstt. Director, Prosecution, Jodhpur vide letter dated 17.11.2003 (Annexure-11) sent the original bills and vouchers to the respondent No. 3 Director, Prosecution, Jaipur. Thereafter, office of the Director, Prosecution, Jaipur (respondent No. 3) wrote a letter Annexure-12 dated 3.1.2004 to the Principal, Medical College, Jaipur wherein it was requested that actual amount which could be reimbursed to the petitioner may be made clear and alongwith that letter Annexure-12, original bills and vouchers of the petitioner were also sent. The office of the Director, Prosecution, Jaipur (respondent No. 3) also wrote a letter Annexure-13 dated 3.1.2004 to the respondent No. 4 Asstt. Director, Prosecution, Jodhpur informing that the petitioner could not be reimbursed travelling expenses for journey to Bombay because he went to Bombay at his own choice and no proof was submitted regarding long waiting list at Delhi. A copy of the said letter Annexure-13 dated 3.1.2004 was also endorsed to the petitioner and on receipt of that letter Annexure-13, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the respondent No. 3 Director, Prosecution, Jaipur on 9.1.2004, a copy of which is marked as Annexure-14. Thereafter, the petitioner received an order dated 3.3.2004 (Annexure-15) passed by the respondent No. 3 Director, Prosecution, Jaipur by which the petitioner was granted only Rs. 25,000/- as against his total claim for Rs. 1,15,919.50 towards medical expenses. The further case of the petitioner is that denial of actual medical expenses incurred by the petitioner for operated at Bombay Hospital, Bombay was wholly arbitrary and illegal and thus, he served a notice for demand of justice dated 15.3.2004 (Annexure-16) upon the respondents through counsel requesting them that in view of the settled proposition of law, the petitioner may be sanctioned reimbursement of actual medical and travelling expenses which he had incurred for his operation at Bombay Hospital, Bombay. In reply to the said notice for demand of justice Annexure-16, the respondents through letter Annexure-17 dated 22.4.2004 informed that the case of the petitioner was being considered sympathetically. However, nothing has been done so far. Hence, this writ petition with the prayer as stated above. In this petition, the following submissions have been made by the petitioner :- (i) That no doubt the petitioner was referred for his treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi, but since there was a long waiting list at New Delhi which may take considerably long time in his turn for operation and looking to the nature of disease, it was not possible for the petitioner to wait for such a long time else something untoward might happen, in such circumstances, the petitioner thought it proper to get himself operated at Bombay Hospital, Bombay so that he may be cured within time. Therefore, whatever was done by the petitioner, that was done in the interest of his health and nothing else. In these circumstances, the petitioner should have not been denied reimbursement of actual medical expenses incurred by him for his operation at Bombay Hospital, Bombay. (ii) That it was not a case where the petitioner had proceeded to Bombay without information and it was also not a case where the Bombay Hospital, Bombay is not included in Appendix-11 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1970") and it was also not a case where the bills were not found genuine one and in such circumstances, when the Bombay Hospital, Bombay was also recognized as per the Rules of 1970 and it was expedient to get operated immediately and when prior information had been sent by the petitioner, therefore, the respondents ought to have sanctioned the reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner for operation at Bombay Hospital, Bombay and denial of reimbursement of medical expenses is wholly arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and their case is that the Board, which was constituted by the Principal and Controller, Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur had submitted a false report in respect of the treatment of the disease by referring the petitioner to go out of State as the ther Board, which was constituted by SMS Medical College and Hospitals, had opined that treatment of the disease, with which the petitioner was suffering, was available in SMS Hospital, Jaipur and therefore, the petitioner could have been operated at Jaipur and estimated expenses for that treatment would have been Rs. 25,000/-. It has been further submitted by the respondents that no doubt the petitioner was referred for treatment in AIIMS, New Delhi, but he had not submitted the proof relating to long waiting list at AIIMS, New Delhi and further, on the basis of the advice given by the Medical Board at Jodhpur, the petitioner could have taken treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi at the most, but without permission or reference, the petitioner had taken treatment at Bombay Hospital, Bombay and therefore, he was not entitled for reimbursement of the actual medical expenses incurred by him for operation at Bombay Hospital, Bombay. Hence, no interference is called for and writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record.;