Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. K.C. Bishnoi vs Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana ... on 24 July, 2013
Author: M.M.S. Bedi
Bench: M.M.S. Bedi
CWP No. 17679 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 17679 of 2012.
Date of Decision : 24.07.2013.
Dr. K.C. Bishnoi
...Petitioner
Versus
Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agriculture University and
others
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.
Present: Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikramjeet Singh, Advocate
for the respondents.
M.M.S. BEDI, J. (Oral)
Through instant petition, the petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to reimburse the medical expenses equal to the PGI, Chandigarh rates as his wife Smt. Godawari Devi suffering from heart problem, had been treated at Narayana Hrudayala Hospital, Jaipur. Taking into consideration the condition of the wife of the petitioner after necessary tests, Pace Maker was implanted. She was admitted on 20.06.2011 and was discharged on 21.06.2011. Kanchan 2013.07.31 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 17679 of 2012 2 The medical expenses incurred are stated to be `1,62,000/- approximately. Since `1,00,000/- had been claimed by the petitioner from Oriental Insurance Company, a sum of around Rs. 61,000/- was not paid by the respondents.
The reason for which the claim was not given is that as per instructions dated 06.05.2005 of Haryana Government, Health Department, adopted by the respondent-University, reimbursement is permissible for the treatment taken in an emergency in an unapproved hospital equal to PGI, Chandigarh rates. It has been disputed that the wife of the petitioner having not taken the treatment in emergency, the claim deserved to be rejected.
In view of the judgment in Mahipal Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2008(2) PLR 319, it has been observed that it is only in dire emergency that a person reaches the hospital where immediate treatment can be given. The attitude of the State Authorities in adopting a strict attitude, had been condemned. In the said judgment, it was observed that the authorities are not supposed to adopt a wooden attitude and stick to technicalities while dealing with human problems. There can be no mathematical precision while dealing with human beings.
Even otherwise, the wife of the petitioner cannot be said to have opted to get herself treated for her ailment without there being any emergent need. Even if it is Kanchan 2013.07.31 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 17679 of 2012 3 presumed that the petitioner's wife had been taken to a hospital, which is not on the panel of respondent University, the petitioner is still entitled to the reimbursement of medical bills at PGI rates.
In view of the above circumstances, the petition is allowed. It is directed that respondents will reimburse the medical bills of the petitioner for a sum of `61,000/- approximately as per claim submitted and release the amount calculated at PGI rates within a period of three months after the receipt of certified copy of this order.
July 24, 2013. (M.M.S. BEDI)
kanchan JUDGE
Kanchan
2013.07.31 11:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document