- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Shyam Singh v. State Of Rajasthan And Others,
Summary of Opinion: N.C. Kochhar, J.
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner, an Assistant Accounts Officer in the office of the Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit Department, Jodhpur (respondent No. 4), took leave effective 30 July 1991 to attend his son's engagement in Nadiad, Gujarat. While there he fell ill and underwent treatment described in the opinion as "Extra Sock have Lithotripsy (ESWL)". He was admitted to Mulji Bhai Patel Urology Hospital, Nadiad, operated upon 1 August 1991 and remained admitted until 5 August 1991.
The petitioner paid Rs. 6,000/- for operation charges and spent Rs. 266,24 for medicines. He obtained a receipt dated 6 August 1991 (Annex. 1) for operation charges and a certificate dated 6 August 1991 (Annex. 2) verifying the medicine bills. He submitted a claim to the State Government of Rajasthan for reimbursement of these amounts.
The State Government did not pass the bills on the ground that the hospital in question had not been recognised by the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the refusal to reimburse, relying on a notification dated 3 September 1991 (Annex. 3) issued by the State of Gujarat recognizing certain hospitals (including Mulji Bhai Patel Urology Hospital) for lithotripsy treatment for Gujarat government employees. The respondents contested the writ petition on the ground that recognition by the State of Gujarat could not substitute for recognition by the State of Rajasthan under the applicable rules governing reimbursement for treatment obtained outside Rajasthan.
The matter was heard by N.C. Kochhar, J., and judgment was delivered disposing of the writ petition.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an employee of the State of Rajasthan who falls ill outside Rajasthan at a place where the required treatment is not available in Government hospitals and where no hospital providing the treatment has been recognised by the State of Rajasthan, may obtain treatment in a hospital recognised by the State Government of the place where treatment is available and claim reimbursement from the State of Rajasthan.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner relied on a notification dated 3 September 1991 (Annex. 3) issued by the State of Gujarat which recognised Mulji Bhai Patel Urology Hospital, Nadiad, as an authorised hospital for lithotripsy-treatment because such treatment was not available in Gujarat Government hospitals; he sought reimbursement of the operation and medicine costs incurred there.
Respondents' Arguments
- The respondents contended that under the applicable rules medical treatment outside the State of Rajasthan is permitted only from hospitals run by the Central Government or a State Government or from hospitals recognised by the State of Rajasthan; because the Mulji Bhai Patel Urology Hospital was not recognised by the State of Rajasthan, the petitioner could not claim reimbursement on the basis of recognition by the State of Gujarat.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the factual record and the Gujarat notification (Annex. 3), noting that lithotripsy-treatment was not available at Gujarat Government hospitals and that the State of Gujarat had recognised Mulji Bhai Patel Urology Hospital, Nadiad, as an authorised hospital for that treatment. The court identified the central question as whether a Rajasthan State employee in the described circumstances should be denied treatment or, if treated at a hospital recognised by the local State Government where the treatment is available, be deprived of reimbursement by the State of Rajasthan.
The court emphasised that health is a prime consideration and that a person who falls ill must obtain medical aid where it is available. Applying that principle to the facts, the court concluded that when required treatment is not available at Government hospitals in the place where the employee falls ill and the State of Rajasthan has not recognised any local hospital for that treatment, the employee may obtain treatment at a hospital recognised by the State Government of the place where the treatment is available and claim reimbursement.
On that basis the court found the respondent's refusal to reimburse the petitioner for the amounts shown in Annexures 1 and 2 to be illegal and unjust, and therefore liable to be set aside.
Holding and Implications
The writ petition is allowed: the order refusing reimbursement is quashed and the petitioner is directed to be paid the amounts shown in Annexures 1 and 2 by the State of Rajasthan within one month from the date of the judgment.
Implications:
- Direct effect: The petitioner is to be reimbursed by the State of Rajasthan within one month for the operation charges and medicines paid to Mulji Bhai Patel Urology Hospital, Nadiad, as evidenced by Annexures 1 and 2.
- Legal principle articulated: The court held that where required treatment is not available at Government hospitals at the place where an employee falls ill and the employee's home State has not recognised any local hospital for such treatment, the employee may obtain treatment at a hospital recognised by the State Government of the place where treatment is available and seek reimbursement from his home State.
- The opinion does not state that it creates any express, separate binding rule beyond the reasoning applied to the facts of this petition; its direct consequence is the quashing of the refusal to reimburse in this case.
N.C Kochhar, J.:— Heard.
The petitioner has been working as an Assistant Accounts Officer, in the office of the Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit Department, Jodhpur (the respondent No. 4). He took leave with effect from 30th July, 1991 and went to Nadiad in the State of Gujarat, in connection with the engagement-ceremony of his son. There, he fell ill by suffering from Extra Sock have Lithotripsy (ESWL) and got admitted in the Mulji Bhai Patel Urology Hospital, Nadiad, where, he was operated upon on 1st August, 1991 and where he remained admitted upto 5th August, 1991. He made payment of Rs. 6,000/- by way of operation charges and spent Rs. 266,24, for purchasing the medicines, prescribed by the said Hospital. A receipt dated 6th August, 1991 (Annex. 1) was issued to him in respect of the operation-charges paid by him to the Hospital and the certificate dated 6th Aug., 91 (Annex. 2) was issued in respect of the verification of the bills amounting to Rs. 266,24, by which, the medicines had been purchased. The petitioner submitted his claim for reimbursement of the amount, spent by him by way of operation charges, besides the amount, spent by him for purchasing the medicines, prescribed by the Hospital. His bills were, however, not passed by the State Government, on the ground that the Hospital in question had not been recognised. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, challenging the order, refusing reimbursement of the bills in question and has pleaded that the Hospital in question has been recognised by the State of Gujarat, for its employees, in respect of lithotripsy-treatment, which is not available in the Government Hospitals and has issued the notification dated 3rd September, 1991 (Annex. 3) in this respect, and it has been prayed that the respondents be directed to reimburse the bills of the petitioner, in respect of his operation and treatment at the above-said Hospital in Nadiad.
2. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents, on the ground that according to the rules, a medical-treatment, outside the State of Rajasthan, can be had from a hospital, run by the Central Government or by the State Government, or from a hospital, which is recongnised by the State of Rajasthan and that the State of Rajasthan having not recognised the above-said Hospital at Nadiad; the petitioner cannot claim any relief on the basis of the recognition of the said Hospital by the State Government of Gujarat.
3. Annexure-3 is the notification, issued by the State of Gujarat, in which, it has specifically been mentioned that since lithotripsy-treatment is not available in the Government hospitals, three hospitals were being recognised as the authorised hospitals, where the said treatment can be had by the employees of the Government of Gujarat and one of those hospitals, is the Mulji Bhai Patel Urology Hospital, Nadiad, in which, the petitioner was operated upon and he got his treatment.
4. It is thus clear that the facility of the treatment, like the one, taken by the petitioner, was not available at the Government Hospital, at Nadiabad, which fact is apparent from the notification, issued by the Government of Gujarat itself, who has recognised Mulji Bhai Patel Urology Hospital, Nadiabad, as one of the hospitals, in which, the Government servants of the State of Gujarat can get the treatment. The only question, in these circumstances, which is required to be answered, is as to whether in such a situation, an employee of the State of Rajasthan, who falls sick at a place, where the required treatment is not available in the Government Hospital and where no hospital, having the treatment, has been recognised by the State Government, should remain untreated and if he gets treatment, can he be deprived of the benefit of being treated at the cost of the State Government. Health is the prime consideration of everyone and on falling ill, one has to take the medical-aid, at such a place, where it is available. Accordingly, my answer to the question, is that an employee of the State of Rajasthan, on falling ill, at a place outside the State of Rajasthan, where no treatment is available for the ailment concerned at the Government hospital and no other hospital is recognised by the State of Rajasthan, can get treat in a hospital, where such treatment is available and such hospital is recognised by the State Government of the place concerned.
5. Consequently, I am of the view that the respondent's decision not to reimburse the petitioner, for the amounts, spent by him, for undergoing operation at Mulju Bhai Patel Urology Hospital, at Nadiad and for purchasing the medicines, prescribed by the said Hospital, is not legal, but is unjust and is liable to be set aside.
6. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the order, refusing to reimburse the petitioner in respect of the amounts, spent by him vide Annexures 1 and 2, is quashed and it is directed that the petitioner should be paid the amounts, by the State of Rajasthan, within a period of one month from today.
7. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Alert