Rajasthan HC: The govt can not deny medical reimbursement of its employee if he has taken treatment in Unrecognized Private Hospital in emergent situation

 Illustratively, reference may be had to the judgment

rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Kanhaiya Lal

Dave Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No. 420/2009, which in turn relies on another division

bench precedent, wherein it is held as below:

“8.This Court considered the issue of emergent situation in the case

of Gyanendra Kumar Pareek Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Reported

in 2009(4) WLC(Raj.)-95 and held that when a family member

suffers from cardiac ailment, the prime objective of the other family member would be to save his/her life. At that time, services of whichever hospital is suited could be utilized because emergency knows no law and no procedure and when human life is at stake, in such situation, ultimate responsibility of the State cannot be washed off. This Court relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Anil Kumar Surolia Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2005(3) WLC(Raj.)- 396 wherein the Division Bench observed as under:-

“Government cannot insist upon an employee

to get himself treated at recognized government

institution. All that the Government in these

circumstances can do is to reimburse the concerned

employee at the rates that may be applicable in the

recognized government institution. Reference in this

connection may be made to the judgment of the

Honble Supreme Court in Surjit Singh Vs. State of

Punjab reported in AIR 1996 SC-1388 and State of

Punjab & Ors. Vs. Mohan Lal Jindal reported in

(2001) 9 SCC-217. Consequently, the reimbursement

of the medical expenses borne by the State

Government employees and pensioners has to be done

even if the treatment is undertaken at unrecognized

hospital outside the State even though reference may

not have been taken prior to treatment.”

x-x-x-x-x-x-x

10.Thus, as per scheme of medical concession applicable to the retired employees, the only hurdle against the petitioner for being granted reimbursement of the medical bills is that his wife was subjected to treatment at an unrecognised hospital outside the State and that too without a reference being made. However, as has been noted above, the Division Bench of this Court has already laid the issue to rest by observing that even if the treatment is taken at an unrecognized hospital and without any reference, the reimbursement thereof has to be done at the rates prescribed in the Concession Scheme. x-x-x-x-x-x”

11. On a specific query being put to the learned counsel for the respondents, as to whether the aforesaid judgment is applicable to the case of the petitioner herein; the answer given is in the affirmative. Not only that, it transpires that the aforesaid Single Bench Judgment has attained finality as no intra-Court appeal was filed against the same.

12. In the premise, I see no reason why the benefit thereof is

not also accorded to the petitioner, who is similarly situated.

Question framed in Para 5 of the preceding para of the instant

order is thus answered in affirmative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5714/2011

Sohan Lal Sharma Vs  State Finance And Ors

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Dated: 04/12/2024.

Citation: [2024:RJ-JD:49546]

Print Page

Supreme Court: Right to medical treatment is available to Undertrial under Fundamental right to life

 We deem it appropriate to issue the above

direction even though Sh. Tushar Mehta, learned

Solicitor General has emphasised that adequate medical

treatment is being provided as in the case of all

other jail inmates and if need be further facility

shall be extended to the arrestee. We state that the

most precious fundamental ‘right to life’

unconditionally embraces even an undertrial. The

consideration made herein is keeping in view the

peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Merely

because the other jail inmates are receiving treatment

similar to the arrestee need not deter us.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (Crl.) No(s). 307 OF 2020

KERALA UNION OF WORKING JOURNALISTS Vs

UNION OF INDIA 

Dated: APRIL 28, 2021

Print Page

Whether the government can refuse to grant medical reimbursement to govt servant if he has failed to obtain referral order before taking medical treatment?

The reply of the Government is short and opposes the prayer

of the petitioner on two grounds. Firstly that there was no referral order allowing the petitioner to take the treatment from outside the State and secondly, there were no extra ordinary urgent grounds for the petitioner to have travelled outside the State for his treatment without presenting himself before the Medical Board.

[5] Both the objections of the Government need to be overruled.

Firstly, as noted the petitioner was struggling with aggressive infection on

his nose which did not get cured despite his treatment at the hands of

ENT specialist and skin specialist. The petitioner therefore desired to

have further investigations and opinion from the experts. He, therefore,

approached the authorities for permission to travel outside State. His

request dated 29th November, 2019 met with no immediate response. He could not wait any longer. He started his travel on 5th December, 2019. It was only thereafter that the Medical Board conveyed to him that unless and until he is present a referral order cannot be issued in his favour. On 7th December, 2019 the hospital at Vellore detected that the petitioner was suffering from cancer. Under such circumstances it was not expected for the petitioner to have waited for the Medical Board to call him for

personal appearance for grant of referral order which would delay his

treatment. As things turned out, having gone to Vellore for investigations,

the petitioner ended up the undergoing entire treatment even without

returning home for which purpose his leave was sanctioned by the

employer.

[6] Under such circumstances to expect the petitioner to wait for

the referral order is unreasonable. It is not even the case of the

respondents that the specialized treatment needed for such cancer is

readily available within the State. In other words going by the stand of the

respondents if the petitioner had presented himself before the Medical

Board and waited for long enough for the Medical Board to respond to

his request for grant of referral order, the same would have been granted.

Only on that ground to deny the benefit of reimbursement of medical

expenditure would be interpreting the policy of the Government too

rigidly. Further, the ground that there was no urgency in the petitioner

departing for treatment, also must be rejected. After having waited for

long enough for the treatment prescribed by the local doctors to have

effect and the treatment having failed to have desired effect, the petitioner

had to have a proper diagnosis and line of treatment. It is not as if the

petitioner departed immediately without informing the employer or even

the Medical Board. The petitioner did approach the Medical Board but

could not give too long a time for Medical Board to respond. The

petitioner had to take a calculated risk of departing without prior referral

order.

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA

W.P(C) No. 289/2020

Sri Kali Sankar Baidya, Vs.  The State of Tripura, 

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI

Dated: 30/09/2020

Print Page

Supreme Court: Hospital which is giving free medical treatment to some patients and charging others for providing services are liable under consumer protection Act

While evaluating the submission which has been urged by Mr R S

Suri, it is necessary, at the outset, to have regard to the principles which

have been laid down in the judgment of this Court in Indian Medical

Association. In the judgment of this Court, the provisions of Section 2(1)

(o) of the Act fell for interpretation. Section 2(1)(o) provides as follows:

“"service" means service of any description which is

made available to the potential users and includes

the provision of facilities in connection with banking,

financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply

of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or

both, [housing construction], entertainment,

amusement or the purveying of news or other

information, but does not include rendering of any

service free of charge or under a contract of

personal service;"

10 Interpreting the above provision, a three judge Bench of this Court

held that it is only where a hospital provides medical services free of

charge across the board to all patients that it would stand outside the

purview of the Act. The Court held that a hospital which renders free

services to a certain category of patients, while providing for services

which are charged to the bulk of others would not lie outside the purview of

the jurisdiction of the consumer fora. This principle is evident from the

following extract from the decision of this Court:

“43...The third category of doctors and hospitals do provide

free service to some of the patients belonging to the poor

class but the bulk of the service is rendered to the patients on

payment basis. The expenses incurred for providing free

service are met out of the income from the service rendered

to the paying patients. The service rendered by such doctors

and hospitals to paying patients undoubtedly fall within the

ambit of Section 2(1) (o) of the Act.”

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No 2823 of 2020

Union of India Vs  N K Srivasta 

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

Dated:July 23, 2020

Print Page

Whether Judicial officer is entitled to get medical reimbursement in respect of the medical treatment of his parents if they are getting a pension?

Service - Medical Reimbursement - Family member - Rule 2(3)(Seven) of Maharashtra Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1961 - Respondent refused to medical Reimbursement of expenses spend by Petitioner, on treatment of his mother - Hence present petition - Whether petitioner entitled to medical reimbursement - Held, according to Rule 2 (3)(Seven) of Rules, father and mother of Government employee who received pension more than Rs. 3500/- per month would not be considered wholly dependent - In present case, mother of Petitioner was getting pension more than amount specified in above clause - But following ratio of State of M.P. & others v. M.P. Ojha & Anr and Nand Rani, Principal Govt. Sr. v. The State of Punjab & Ors., observed that expression "wholly dependent" could not be confined to mere financial dependence - Therefore, Petitioner's mother being 85 years old, and both, physically and financially dependent on him, was wholly inadequate to meet her medical expenses - Hence, Petitioner entitled medical reimbursement - Petition allowed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 8899 of 2012

Decided On: 03.04.2013

Anil Dattatraya Kulkarni Vs.   State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V.M. Kanade and F.M. Reis, JJ.

Citation;2013(5)ABR717, 2013(6)ALLMR804, 2013LabIC3612

Print Page

Whether cruelty to wife was proved even if she has failed to produce medical certificate of injury caused to her?

Learned Trial Court observed that burden to prove cruelty lies on the appellant and the appellant has failed to do so because she has not enclosed medical report. In our opinion, it is not always possible to do medical for every injury. It is tendency in our society to avail home remedies and to avoid doctors as far as possible, until or unless injury or disease is not very serious. Even otherwise, had the appellant gone to doctor for medical treatment, even then, it cannot be presumed that appellant would keep the prescription of doctor assuming that in future, she will file a Court case and medical prescription would be required in the matter. So we are convinced with the arguments of learned Counsel for the appellant.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

First Appeal No. 105 of 2011

Decided On: 23.07.2018

 Sonia Vs. Sanjay Mehta

Print Page

When accused has failed to prove plea of alibi on ground that at that time he was taking medical treatment?

D.W.1 Hirdaya Nand Manjhi has stated in his evidence that
he is posted as Dresser at Primary Health Centre, Jalalpur since 1998. On
22.01.2000, Dr. Jagdev Mandal (D.W.4) examined Shiv Dayal Singh
(appellant), whose name is at O.P.D. No.7106 as patient No.14. The entry
was made by Dr. Jagdev Mandal (D.W.4) in his presence and he proved the
O.P.D. Entry No.7106 as Ext.1. He also proved the O.P.D. prescription as
Ext.B and certificate of Dr. Jagdev Mandal as Ext.C. In cross examination,
he stated that he did not write anything in the O.P.D. Register and there is no
signature of the doctor in the O.P.D. Register.
 D.W.4 Dr. Jagdev Mandal has stated in his evidence that on
22.01.2000, he was Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre, Jalalpur, and
on that day, he examined patient Shiv Dayal Singh, aged about 40 years, son
of Late Kali Singh of village-Nandanpur, P.S. Taraiya, District-Saran as
O.P.D. patient and he was admitted and discharged on 25.01.2000 from the
hospital. At that time, Hirdiya Nand Manjhi (D.W.1) was Dresser in the
hospital. He further stated that the certificate issued by him is in his
handwriting and signature, which is already marked as Ext.C. In cross
examination, he has stated that on 22.01.2000, 14 patients were examined and
Shiv Dayal Singh was last patient. Primary Health Center, Jalalpur is of six
bed hospital and on 22.01.2000, only Shiv Dayal Singh was admitted for
treatment. He further stated that in Ext.B, which is discharge slip, there is no
date of discharge. He also stated that he did not know how many medicines
were provided to the patient Shiv Dayal Singh by the hospital and how many
medicines were purchased by him from the market.
From the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 4, it is apparent that Ext.A,
which is entry No.7106 of O.P.D. Register relating to check up of Shiv Dayal
Singh on 22.01.2000 does not bear the signature of the doctor against the 
entry of patient no.14 on that date and the discharge slip (Ext.B) relating to
patient Shiv Dayal Singh also does not bear the date of discharge. No bed
head ticket is brought on record regarding the admission and treatment of Shiv
Dayal Singh (appellant) in the hospital in between 22.01.2000 and 25.01.2000
as indoor patient. As such, the plea of alibi of Shiv Dayal Singh(appellant)
that on the date of occurrence, i.e., 23.01.2000, he was indoor patient at
Primary Health Centre, Jalalpur, appears to be untrustworthy.
 So far as the third submission as made on behalf of the appellant
Shiv Dayal Singh about his alibi is concerned, while D.W.1 Hirdaya Nand
Manjhi and D.W.4 Jagdev Mandal, who respectively are said to be posted as
Dresser and Medical Officer at Primary Health Center, Jalalpur, have stated
that the appellant Shiv Dayal Singh was examined on 22.01.2000 by entering
his name in O.P.D. Register at serial no.7106 as last patient on 22.01.2000 and
he was admitted for treatment and discharged on 25.01.2000. But D.W.1
Hridaya Nand Manjhi has stated that in entry at serial no.7106 in the O.P.D.
Register, the name of the appellant Shiv Dayal Singh is detailed but against
the entry, the column of signature of the doctor is blank. Ext.D, which is
Discharge Certificate issued by the Dr. Jagdev Mandal (D.W.1) also does not
bear the date of discharge which is itself admitted by D.W.4 Dr. Jagdev
Mandal. While the appellant Shiv Dayal Singh is said to be admitted at
Primary Health Center, Jalalpur on 22.01.2000 and discharged after treatment
on 25.01.2000 but no Bed Head Ticket is brought on the record. As such, I
find no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant
Shiv Dayal Singh that he was under treatment at Primary Health Centre,
Jalalpur, on 23.01.2000 and discharged from there on 25.01.2000.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.683 of 2010

Shiv Dayal Singh V State of Bihar

CORAM: MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH
and
 MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA

Date: 7 -09-2016
Citation: 2016 CRLJ 433 Pat

Print Page

Whether continued medical treatment to employee while in service and after retirement is duty of employer and state?

We may also refer to the observations made by the
Supreme Court in Consumer Education and Research Centre and ors.
v/s. Union of India and ors., AIR 1995 SC 922. In the above case on
consideration of Article 21 read with Articles 39(e), 41, 43 and 48A
of the Constitution the Apex Court held that the workman has a right
to health. The Court held that continued medical treatment, while in
service and after retirement is a moral, legal and constitutional
concomitant duty of the employer and the State. The Apex Court has
accordingly held that right to health, medical aid to protect the
health and vigour of a worker while in service or post retirement is a
fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. We hope and
trust that respondents will keep this constitutional mandate in mind
while considering the claims of the employees for reimbursement of
the medical expenses, particularly when employees are merely
claiming reimbursement for costs of medicines purchased by them as
per prescription of the doctor.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.11434 OF 2012
Rajendra B. Kasare 
v/s.
Union of India & Anr.

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. &
M.S.SANKLECHA, J.
DATE : 25 March 2014
Citation; 2015(3) ALLMR222

Print Page