Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.32 seconds)

Sanjay Rana vs Dept Of Health Haryana And Ors on 2 March, 2020

From the above, it is evident that the petitioner was suffering from decompensated liver disease and required liver transplant. It is also not disputed that it was a case of emergency. The petitioner cannot be blamed for getting his liver transplant at the Bombay Hospital, Indore, where the liver was made available to him in pursuance to his application to the various hospitals including Bombay Hospital, Indore, as per the Notification of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, dated 27.03.2014. In such circumstances, the respondents cannot reject claim of reimbursement solely on the ground that the hospital, where he was treated, was not empanelled in the Government order. In such cases, all that the authorities are required to ensure is that the treatment was now actually undertaken by the claimant and the said treatment is duly supported by the record. The respondents do not dispute the fact that the petitioner did undergo treatment at the Bombay Hospital at Indore. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Pal vs Central Administrative Tribunal and others, 2019(1) SCT 763 pleased to hold in almost similar set of circumstances by taking into consideration the judgments rendered in the case of Shiva Kant Jha vs Union of India, 2018(2) SCT 529: AIR 2018 SC 1975 as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Avinash Chander Gupta vs State Of Haryana And Others on 1 February, 2021

Learned counsel further relies upon a judgment passed by the Division Bench in Ram Pal vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and others' 2019 (1) SCT 763. On reading of the aforesaid judgment, it is apparent that the petitioner who was working in Northern Railway had got the treatment of his daughter from PGIMER, Chandigarh. The Court after discussing 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 22-08-2021 15:32:53 ::: CWP-307-2021(O&M) 5 the relevant instructions and guidelines held that the petitioner, in the aforesaid case, is entitled to reimbursement.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A Kshetarpal - Full Document

Mahesh Kumar Hans & Anr vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 14 January, 2020

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the various judgments of this Court including Ram Pal Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and others, 2019(1) Law Herald (P&H) 281 as well as Annexure P-7 CWP No.1523 of 2011 decided on 7.2.2013 titled as Om Parkash Vs. State of Haryana and others to contend that the petitioner is entitled to the reimbursement of the expenses made on his treatment equivalent to the rates of PGIMER Chandigarh/AIIMS, even though it is not a case of emergency as long as it is not disputed that the employee has taken the said treatment.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1