Ganesh Prasad Patel vs State of M.P. and Others

Rajendra Menon, J.—Petitioner is an Advocate practicing in the High Court and it is his contention that his wife Late Smt. Anusuiya Patel was appointed as a Lower Division Teacher in the year 1981 and thereafter she was working as Hostel Superintendent in the respondents department. Due to renal failure she is said to have expired on 22.11.2011. Petitioner''s wife was detected with renal failure in 2004 and she is said to have undergone treatment in various hospitals, including Medical College Hospital, Jabalpur. Respondents have made certain advance payment for treatment of the petitioner. However, due to petitioner''s wife becoming serious sometime in October 2011, in emergency, it is stated that she was admitted to Jabalpur Hospital and Research Centre in Jabalpur, where she underwent treatment, but succumbed to the ailment and died on 22.11.2011. It is said that medical claim and bills amounting to Rs. 4,97,000/- were submitted and as the claims have not been settled, this writ petition has been filed.

Respondents have filed a detailed reply and have indicated that certain amount with regard to the claim of the deceased wife has been settled, but with regard to reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred for treatment in Jabalpur Hospital, it is said that the said Hospital is not approved or authorized hospital and, therefore, the claim cannot be settled. It is stated that without proper reference and without any permission from the competent authority, the treatment taken in Jabalpur Hospital is an unauthorized treatment and, therefore, the same cannot be settled.

Learned counsel for the petitioner refuted the aforesaid and by placing reliance on a judgment rendered by a Bench of this Court in the case of Vishwanath Prasad Khare (Dr) Vs. State of MP and others, 2009 (III) MPJR SN 8, and affirmation of the aforesaid judgment by a Division Bench in the case of State of MP and others Vs. Dr. Vishwanath Prasad Khare, 2009 (III) MPJR SN 9, submits that even for treatment taken in an emergency situation in a private or un-approved hospital, if the claim is found to be genuine and the treatment undertaken, medical reimbursement can be permitted. It is pointed out by learned counsel that the judgment in the case of Dr. Vishwanath Prasad Khare (supra) is based on the principle laid down by two judgments rendered by the Supreme Court, which are referred to therein.

Pointing out that in the present case due to chronic renal failure of petitioner''s wife, at the relevant time an emergency situation had risen and the petitioner had no option but to undertake the treatment of his wife in the hospital in question and further contending that when the treatment was undertaken and the fact about ailment of the government servant is not disputed, merely on the ground that the hospital where the treatment was taken is unauthorized, claim cannot be rejected in the light of the law laid down in the case of Dr. Vishwanath Prasad Khare (supra).

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

The only reason given by the respondents in the return filed for rejecting the claim of the petitioner is that his wife was admitted to a hospital which was not approved or authorized for treatment of a state government employee. However, apart from making such an assertion, it is not the case of the respondents that the claim made is false or that the treatment was not undergone or that the ailment is not suffered by the government servant concerned.

Question identical in nature have already been considered by this Court in the case of Dr. Vishwanath Prasad Khare (supra) and directions have been issued for settling the claim. Objections identical in nature have been rejected and claim has been settled.

Keeping in view the aforesaid legal principle, I am of the considered view that merely because the petitioner is said to have undertaken treatment in an unauthorized hospital, that by itself should not be a ground for rejection of the claim. The claim should be evaluated in the light of the principle laid down in the case of Dr. Vishwanath Prasad Khare (supra), the rules applicable and after considering the eventualities pointed out by the petitioner, a decision should be taken afresh in the matter.

Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid, the matter is remanded back to the competent authority for reconsideration. The competent authority after taking note of the principle of law laid down in the case of Dr. Vishwanath Prasad Khare (supra), additional submissions and grounds, if any, made by the petitioner, shall re-examine the same and decide the claim for medical reimbursement afresh, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.