Punjab-Haryana High Court
Inder Pal Khod, A.D.A., Haryana ... vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 20 January, 2000
Equivalent citations: (2000)125PLR31
Author: Swatanter Kumar
Bench: Swatanter Kumar
JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by Inder Pal Khod, Who was working as A.D.A. in Haryana Roadways at Sirsa, with a prayer that the respondents be directed to reimburse the medical bills submitted by him for Rs.1,78,818.55 paise. Shri Raja Ram Khod, father of the petitioner, who stated to be fully dependant upon the petitioner, was suffering from Coronary Artery disease. He was directed to undergo Angiography and thereafter was suggested open heart surgery. The petitioner was referred by the Civil Surgeon, Sirsa to the Medical Superintendent, I.G.I. M.S. Rohtak, who further referred the petitioner to get the treatment from other hospital, as the said treatment was not available at Rohtak, The case was referred to the Medical Superintendent. Pt. BDS, PGIMS, Rohtak, vide letter dated 2.7.1997 of Civil Surgeon, Sirsa, annexure P-1 to the petition. Vide letter dated 7,7.1997, annexure P-2 to the petition, the Medical Superintendent, P.G.I. M.S., Rohtak, had referred the matter to Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi, with clear stipulation that the petitioner would be entitled to the reimbursement of the amount in accordance with rules. Resultantly, father of the petitioner was admitted to Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi, on 12.7.1997 and was discharged on 24.7.1997. For all this treatment, the petitioner had submitted a bill of Rs.1,78,18.55 paise.
2. Upon notice, the respondents filed reply and stated that the payment of Rs.1,36,238/- was already made to the petitioner by the respondents for the treatment of his father and the petitioner was not entitled to the remaining amount, as the same was not admissible Under the rules. It has been stated in the reply and was argued on behalf of the State that the claim for Angiography, Which was done on 20/23.12.1996, Was barred by time and as such could not be reimbursed to the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench 6f this Court in case of Madhu Sharma v. The Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, 1998(4) R.S.J. 229, such instructions of the Government should be ignored and the payment of Rs. 21,415/- spent on Angiography should be ordered to be paid. Next it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have intentionally not paid the dues legally payable to the petitioner and as such they should be directed to pay interest at the rate of 18% on the entire amount. Lastly, he contended that a sum of Rs.1,300/- has been spent on medicines by the petitioner as an out door patient and the same should be ordered to be reimbursed.
4. It is undisputed before this Court that the Government instructions issued for reimbursement of medical bills specifically postulate that the medical bills should be submitted within six months of the treatment/expenditure. The father of the petitioner was subjected to the test of Angiography and for this purpose he remained admitted from 20.12.1996 to 23.12.1996 in the hospital. Admittedly, the petitioner has submitted the reimbursement claim and medical bills in this regard on 8.9.1997. There is no justification for submitting the medical bills so late. Father of the petitioner undertook the Angiography test in December, 1996 and thereafter the petitioner attended his office and undisputedly his father was living normal life till 12.7.1997, when he was admitted for surgery in Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, New Delhi. The judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Madhu Sharma has no application to the facts of the present case. The facts of Madhu Sharma's case (supra) were totally different. In that case, the Court was not concerned with the instructions of the Haryana Government, which have been placed on record in the present case. In Madhu Sharma's case (supra) the reimbursement was denied and the Court held that she had gone to PGI, a Government Hospital, out of compulsion, where she was operated upon for insertion of pace maker and she was entitled to the reimbursement. Thus, fixing the amount lower than the actual expenditure incurred in Government Hospital was held to be not justifiable. I am afraid this judgment is of no help to the petitioner. The petitioner was obliged to submit the medical bills within the required period and thus would not be justified in ignoring the instructions issued by the Government of which the petitioner is taking the benefit of reimbursement. There appears to be no justification for non-submission of the medical bills within the stipulated period. As such the Court does hot find any error on the part of the respondents in rejecting the said claim.
5. As far as the claim of the petitioner for awarding of interest is concerned, this question is no more res integra and stands fully settled and answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Om Parkash Gargi v. State of Punjab and Ors., J.T. 1995(10) S.C. 36 which has also been followed by the various Division Benches of this Court. It is a clear settled law that in case of reimbursement of medical bills the Court should not award interest. Resultantly, this claim of the petitioner is also rejected.
6. As far as the last submission of the petitioner is concerned, the father of the petitioner has admittedly taken treatment as an out door patient and has purchased medicines. This fact is not disputed by the respondents in their reply. During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the State added that the State is paying Rs. 100/- per month to the petitioner on account of fixed medical allowance and as such the petitioner would not be entitled to the expenditure incurred as an out door patient on medicines or otherwise. This contention of the learned counsel for the State is totally misconceived. Once a person has already received treatment in furtherance to such a major surgery and has to incur expenditure on essential medicines for which essentiality certificate has been issued by the concerned doctors, the judgment of the Division Bench even in Madhu Sharma's case (supra) would come to the rescue of the petitioner. The payment of Rs.100/- per month can at best be adjusted against the claim of the petitioner for the relevant period. But this cannot be a ground for denying to the petitioner the relief of reimbursement, which otherwise is permissible. Thus, this claim of the petitioner for the payment of Rs.1,300/- is hereby allowed and the respondents shall make this payment after deducting the amount already paid at the rate of Rs.100/- per month for the relevant period.
7. For the reasons aforestated, this writ petition is allowed only to the limited extent afore indicated without any orders as to costs.