- (1.) The case involves a situation of extreme grief and misfortune befalling on one human being on account of greed of another. The petitioner's only son Aditya Bhardwaj was traveling in a train to Mangalore in relation to his educational pursuits. While traveling, he was administered poison by some unknown persons and was victim of an act known in common parlance as Zahar Khurani. Co-passengers got him admitted at the Government Hospital, Mangalore on 5.10.2007. On receiving information, the petitioner reached Mangalore and as the boy was not responding to the treatment provided at the Government Hospital and remained in a coma, he was shifted to the Unity Hospital, Mangalore on 19.10.2007 as a life saving measure. The petitioner's son passed away while undergoing treatment at the said hospital on 7.11.2007. The petitioner claims that he went into depression owing to the death of his only son and thus he could not submit the medical bills for reimbursement timely in the department. When the bills were submitted for reimbursement under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter in short referred to as the Rules of 1970) the same were rejected on the ground that the treatment was undertaken in an unrecognized hospital outside State of Rajasthan and thus could not be reimbursed as per rules.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the facts of the case are exceptionally harsh and require that the technical objections with reference to the Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter in short referred to as the Rules of 1970) should not be permitted to restrict or curtail the reimbursement of the medical expenses borne in the treatment of the petitioner's son at Mangalore. He contends that it is undisputed that the petitioner's son was a victim of poisoning while traveling in a train. He was found unconscious in the train and his co-passengers got him admitted at the Government Hospital. The petitioner reached Mangalore and waited for his son's recovery by continuing the treatment at Government Hospital itself but the efforts proved unfruitful. He contends that no hospital at Mangalore is empanelled in the Schedule I of Medical Concession Rules. As such, the petitioner was having no option but to shift his son to the best possible private medical facility in Mangalore itself. However, the efforts to revive the petitioner's son in the private hospital also failed and ultimately he passed away on 7.11.2007. The petitioner went into a state of shock by loosing his only son of young age did not even apply for reimbursement for a period of three years. The application for reimbursement was rejected by the communication dated 12.7.2010 Annexure-4 conveying that the Unity Hospital, Mangalore was not an authorized private hospital under the Rules of 1970, and therefore, the reimbursement of the medical expenses was not permissible. Learned counsel submits that in view of the fact that no empanelled/recognized hospital is available at Mangalore, the rejection of the petitioner's claim for reimbursement is absolutely unjustified. He, therefore, prays that a sympathetic view deserves to be taken and the respondents be directed to reimburse the total medical bills of the expenses incurred in the treatment of the petitioner's son at the Unity Hospital Mangalore.
(3.) Learned Addl. Government Counsel appearing for the respondents submit that since the treatment of the petitioner's son was undertaken in an unrecognized/non empanelled hospital outside the State, reimbursement of the expenses incurred therein is not permissible under the Rules of 1970.;