Govind Mathur, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, a retired government servant, by this petition for writ is claiming an appropriate writ, order or direction for respondents to reimburse medical expenses incurred in his treatment at GBH American Hospital, Udaipur.
(2.) IN brief, facts of the case are that on 10.1.2008 the petitioner was taken to Maharana Bhupal Government Hospital, Udaipur on being suffered with acute chest pain. After necessary diagnosis requirement of undergoing urgent rescue, angioplasty and CAG was advised, however, the same facility was not available with the hospital concerned due to non workability of angioplasty machine. The petitioner, therefore, was shifted to GBH American Hospital, Udaipur where on the same day coronary angioplasty and stent planting was made. In the treatment aforesaid an expenses in a tune of Rs. 1,48,774/ -was incurred. The petitioner thereafter made a demand from the respondents for reimbursement of medical expenses and while doing so he also submitted a certificate dated 18.3.2008 issued by the Superintendent, Maharana Bhupal Government Hospital, Udaipur certifying that on 10.1.2008 the facility of angioplasty was not available at hospital due to maintenance work of angioplasty machine. The Member Secretary -cum - Director, Rajasthan Pensioners' Medical & Concession Scheme vide his letter dated 7.6.2008 informed to the Treasury Officer, Udaipur that the petitioner was not entitled for reimbursement of medical expenses being GBH American Hospital, Udaipur not a recognised one by the State Government. Aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ is preferred. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner undergone angioplasty and other ancillary treatment on 10.1.2008 in emergent circumstances due to non availability of angioplasty facility at Maharana Bhupal Government Hospital, Udaipur, therefore, there is no valid reason to deny reimbursement of medical expenses. To substantiate the contention, reliance is placed on various judgments of this Court including Division Bench judgment in Shankerlal v. the State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in : 2000 (3) WLC 585; Mandal Dutt Purohit v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5683/2005 decided on 3.10.2006; Vijay Mal Ostwal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4037/2005 decided on 3.10.2006; Rajesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3243/2003 decided on 4.9.2006; Thomas T. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3749/2006 decided on 14.9.2006; Srikant Bohra v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5941/2004 decided on 15.9.2006; S.L. Purohit v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4036/2005 decided on 15.9.2006; and Manoharlal Singhvi v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 657/2008 decided on 12.8.2009.
(3.) IN Shankerlal's case (supra) the Division Bench of this Court held as under: 27. While considering the contention of the respondent State that the petitioner ought to have availed medical treatment at AIIMS at Delhi or obtained certification required under Rule 7(1) from any medical officer from AIIMS by treating him to be authorised medical attendant in terms of Rule 6(2) who could certify necessary vouchers. It is apt to recall following observations of a Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 13493/92 titled as Sadhu R. Pall v. State of Punjab decided on 6.10.1993 quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in Surjit Singh's case (supra): The respondents appear to have patently used excuses in refusing full reimbursement. When the factum of treatment and the urgency for the same has been accepted by the respondents by reimbursing the petitioner the expenses incurred by him, which he would have incurred in the AIIMS New Delhi. We cannot loose sight of factual situation in the AIIMS New Delhi i.e. with respect to the number of patients received there for heart problems. In such an urgency on cannot sit at home and think in a cool and calm atmosphere for getting medical treatment at a particular hospital or wait for admission in some Government medical institute. In such a situation, decision has to be taken forthwith by the person or his attendants if precious life has to be saved. This is complete answer to above contention. 28. There are two decisions of the Rajasthan High Court referred by the learned single Judge in Khuman Singh Mehta v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., 1996 WLC (UC) 61 and Shyam Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. : 1996 (2) WLC -441 wherein this Court issued a direction to reimburse the medical expenses incurred for securing medical attendance for special diseases outside Rajasthan in like circumstances for the reason that there was no facility of treatment of the disease from which the petitioner was suffering, in the State of Rajasthan are in consonance with above principles and cannot be distinguished. In fact, present case is in better footing inasmuch as the person needing medical treatment has been taken ill and needed such medical attendance while outside Rajasthan and at a place where specialised treatment for her ailment was available at an approved Institution recognised by State of Rajasthan in that behalf. 29. The ratio of these decisions fully applies to the facts of the present case wherein while the petitioner was in Delhi on leave, his wife suffered heart problem and was immediately taken to Escorts Heart and Research Centre, Delhi, which is recognised Hospital for specialised treatment by the State Govt., where his open heart surgery was made. Thus, it is clear that Escorts Heart and Research Institute is one of the recognised Hospital for specialised treatment, there is not escape from the conclusion that the State Govt. is liable to reimburse such expenses without insisting for certification from the authorised Medical Attendant or other Competent Officer, when such a facility was not available in the State of Rajasthan. The claim could not be denied on the ground that because the petitioner instead of waiting in queue and spending time in seeking a clarification from a local hospital has decided to act with promptitude in the interest of self preservation by taking his wife immediately to an Institute approved by the State Govt. 30. Before closing we may notice one ancillary contention raised on behalf of respondent. It was stated that about diagnosis for treatment and certifying expense vouchers, no Doctor of Escorts Health Centre could be considered as Authorised Medical Attendant. The argument appears to be fallacious and founded on ignoring the distinction between function of certifying a patient to be taken to an approved Hospital or Institution outside Station for treatment and certifying the disease for which the patient has actually treated and medical attendance and treatment actually made available to such patient. So far as the treatment given at any approved institution or for that matter by any medical attendant is concerned, it follows his own diagnosis and prognosis. Actual treatment does not follow on the certificate issued under Rule 7(1). It depends on patient being examined at the Hospital or Institution where he is attendant for such treatment. The treatment or medical attendance made available at such institution follows assessments and diagnosis made at or at the instance of such hospital/institution. It is only on such assessment by the treating agency that treatment follows. Therefore, medical attendance at only such institution can certify about the disease with which the treated patient suffered and treatment rendered at such institute as indoor/outdoor patient. The medical attendant of other institution or Hospital in such circumstance puts his counter signatures only for the purpose of authenticating it in accordance with Rules. However, such counter signing by the authenticated medical attendant cannot be by itself take the place of primary proof of diagnosis and treatment rendered by approved hospital or institution at which patient was attendant to. Cases are not wanting where notwithstanding certification by the prescribed authority under Rule 7(1), the approved institution has on their own assessment has found otherwise. Therefore, denial of reimbursement of expenses incurred on medical attendance and treatment bonafide and genuinely by the public servant for availing treatment for himself or any member of his family at recognised hospital/institution in the circumstances like the present case on such technical grounds shall be clearly arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust. The required formalities of counter signing the certificate/vouchers issued by such Institutions can always be cured by obtaining appropriate counter signatures from the competent Officer under the Rules and in the absence of doubt about genuiness of such certification, such authority will not be justified in refusing to countersign without satisfying his doubt.;