[2025:RJ-JP:6715] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10182/2012 1. Fateh Singh (since deceased) S/o Sh. Puran Singh, aged about 65 years, R/o Plot No.635, Gangauri Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.) 1/1. Sultan Singh S/o Late Shri Fateh Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 635, Raja Puran Singh Ji Ki Haweli, Gangauri Bazar, Jaipur, Rajsthan- 302001 1/2. Neelu Rajawat D/o Late Shri Fateh Singh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 635, Nimod House, Gangauri Gate, Tripolia Bajar, Rajasthan- 302002 ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Department of Medical and Health, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Rajasthan State Pensioner Medical Concession Scheme, Directorate of Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Raghav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, AGC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 14/02/2025 1. By way of filing of instant writ petition, a challenge has been made for issuing directions to the respondents to release the amount of medical bills and the expenditure incurred in the treatment of the petitioner. 2. The contents of the petition indicates that the petitioner has suffered chest pain and in the emergent situation his family members took him to SMS Hospital and thereafter, he was [2025:RJ-JP:6715] (2 of 4) [CW-10182/2012] admitted in Heart and General Hospital and it was found that there was blockage in his arteries and accordingly, the treatment of cardiogenic shock was given to the petitioner on 25.02.2009. 3. As per the contents of the petition, the petitioner incurred various expenses in the aforesaid treatment and after recovery, the petitioner submitted an application before the authorities for reimbursement of the aforesaid amount whereby, the respondents have denied the claim of the petitioner on technical counts that the certificate of the treating doctor with regard to emergent situation was not placed before them. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the prayer made in the instant writ petition and submitted that the petitioner was asked to furnish a certificate of the treating doctor that he was suffering from life threatening disease but the petitioner has failed to furnish the said certificate, hence, under these circumstances, further orders could not be passed. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner has suffered heart disease for which he was given treatment at Heart and General Hospital. This fact is also not in dispute that the coronary arteries of the petitioner were blocked and stents were implanted and the petitioner incurred expenses in the aforesaid treatment. This Court finds no valid reason in the order passed by the respondents asking the petitioner to submit the certificate of the emergent treatment taken by the petitioner. The documents available on the record indicates that looking to the urgency [2025:RJ-JP:6715] (3 of 4) [CW-10182/2012] involved in the matter, the treatment was taken in a private hospital. 7. It is a settled proposition of law that a person cannot be compelled to undergo/take treatment in an approved hospital, even in emergent situation. 8. 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. 9. In the case of Shiva Kant Jha Vs. Union of India (UOI), 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....." 10. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shiva Kant (supra), the instant petition stands [2025:RJ-JP:6715] (4 of 4) [CW-10182/2012] disposed of by issuing directions to the respondents to pay the amount of medical bills and expenses incurred in the treatment of the petitioner as per the rates applicable in an approved hospital within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 11. 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% from the date of passing of this order, till its actual payment. 12. Since the petitioner is not aware about of passing of this order, Office is directed to send a copy at the residential address of the petitioner for his information and intimation. 13. Stay application as well as all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Garima/81