[2025:RJ-JP:6506] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8492/2012 Dr. Shubh Ram Jat S/o Shri Gheesa Ram, aged about 51 years, R/o A/23, Hassan Khan Mewat Nagar, Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department, Government Of Rajasthan Governme, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director, Animal Husbandary, Department, Jaipur. 3. Deputy Director, Animal Husbandary Department, Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anant Sharma for Mr. Manish Lawaniya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Verma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 13/02/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a prayer has been made by the petitioner for issuing a direction to the respondents to make the payment of the medical expenses incurred in his treatment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner suffered a severe chest pain on 23.11.2005 and under an emergent situation he was admitted in Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital, Jaipur where 95% blockage was found in his artery and in order to save his life, stent was implanted and in the aforesaid process, the petitioner incurred expenses of Rs.1,44,695/-. Counsel submits that after recovery, an application was submitted by the petitioner before the respondents for [2025:RJ-JP:6506] (2 of 4) [CW-8492/2012] reimbursement of the aforesaid amount but the same has been rejected on a technical count that treatment was taken in the private hospital. Counsel submits that this cannot be a ground to deny the entire medical claim of the petitioner, the respondents could have reimbursed the amount as per the rates applicable in the approved hospital. 3. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the treatment was taken by the petitioner in an unrecognized hospital in the year 2005 and the medical attendance Rules came into enforcement in the year 2009, hence under these circumstances, the aforesaid rules cannot be made applicable with its retrospective effect. Hence under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get any amount towards the medical bills. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner suffered chest pain on 23.11.2005 and looking to his condition, his family member took him to Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital, Jaipur where on examination, it was found that there was 95% blockage in artery, so in order to save the life of the petitioner, the treatment was taken in the said hospital wherein certain amount of expenditure was incurred and the respondents have declined to reimburse the amount of the medical bills on a technical count that the treatment was taken in an unapproved hospital. [2025:RJ-JP:6506] (3 of 4) [CW-8492/2012] 6. It is a settled proposition of law that a person cannot be compelled to undergo treatment in an approved hospital, even in emergent situation. 7. Looking to the urgency and emergency, the treatment was taken in a private hospital hence under these circumstances, respondents could have release the amount of medical bills as per the rates applicable in the approved hospital. 8. In the case of Shiva Kant Jha Vs. Union of India (U OI ), reported in AIR 2018 SC 1975 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- "It is a settled legal position that the Government employee during his life time or after his retirement is entitled to get the benefit of the medical facilities and no fetters can be placed on his rights. It is acceptable to commonsense, that ultimate decision as to how a patient should be treated vests only with the Doctor, who is well versed and expert both on academic qualification and experience gained. Very little scope is left to the patient or his relative to decide as to the manner in which the ailment should be treated. Speciality Hospitals are established for treatment of specified ailments and services of Doctors specialized in a discipline are availed by patients only to ensure proper, required and safe treatment. Can it be said that taking treatment in Speciality Hospital by itself would deprive a person to claim reimbursement solely on the ground that the said Hospital is not included in the Government Order. The right to medical claim cannot be denied merely because the name of the hospital is not included in the Government Order. The real test must be the factum of treatment....." 9. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shiva Kant (supra), this petition stands disposed of with directions to the respondents to make the payment to the petitioner as per the rates applicable in the approved hospitals [2025:RJ-JP:6506] (4 of 4) [CW-8492/2012] within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 10. It is made clear that in case compliance of this order is not made within the stipulated time, then the petitioner would be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum. 10 All pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 11. No order as to costs. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/103