HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10324/2009 Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Sita Ram Ji, Balchandpada, Bundi District Bundi Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Govt. Of Ra, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Chief Engineer Rural, Public Health And Engineering Department, Jaipur 3. The Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Division Bundi ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. SK Jain For Respondent(s) : Ms. Supriya Rana for Ms. Minakshi Jain, GC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 19/02/2025 1. By way of filing of this petition, a prayer has been made for issuing directions to the respondents to reimburse the amount of medical bills towards the expenses incurred in the treatment of the petitioner. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner suffered chest pain and looking to his critical condition, he was admitted at Government Hospital, Bundi, but his condition was deteriorating, therefore, under these circumstances, his family members came to Kota Heart Institute and Research Center, Sudha Hospital Kota, where (2 of 4) [CW-10324/2009] his heart surgery was conducted in which he spent expenses to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/-. Counsel submits that after recovery, an application was submitted for reimbursement of the above expenses, but the respondents have denied to reimburse the same amount by the impugned order dated 21.01.2009 indicating therein that the Sudha Heart Institute and Research Centre, Kota is a private hospital and the treatment is not taken in an approved hospital. Counsel submits that this cannot be a ground of denial of medical claim and the same may be reimbursed as per the rates applicable in the approved hospital, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned State respondents opposes the prayer and submits that the treatment was taken in a hospital which was not approved by the Government, hence, the respondents have not caused any illegality in rejecting the medical claim of the petitioner by passing the order impugned, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner suffered chest pain and he was admitted in hospital and thereafter, looking to his critical condition, his family members took him to Sudha Heart Institute and Research Centre, Kota where his surgery was conducted and in the aforesaid process, the petitioner has incurred expenses. The respondents have declined the medical claim of the petitioner on a technical (3 of 4) [CW-10324/2009] count that the treatment was taken in a private hospital, which was not recognized by the State. This cannot be a ground for denial of the entire claim of the petitioner as the law in this regard is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments. 6. In the case of Shiva Kant Jha Vs. Union of India (UOI), reported in 2018 (16) SCC 187 the Hon'ble Apex Court 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 ina 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....." (4 of 4) [CW-10324/2009] 7. Considering the law propounded by the Apex Court in the case of Shiva Kant Jha (supra), the instant writ petition stands disposed of by issuing directions to the respondents to reimburse the medical bills of the petitioner as per the rates applicable in the approved hospital within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 8. It is made clear that if the respondents fail to comply with this order within the above stipulated time, the petitioner would be entitled to get interest @6% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its actual payment. 9. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/109