High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 03 RAJ CK 0011

Jagan Lal Sharma vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 1 March 2012 · Citation: (2013) 2 CDR 1094

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.N. Bhandari, J
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 3473 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 348 words

M.N. Bhandari, J.—The matter has come up on an application seeking early listing of the writ petition. However, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is heard finally. It is a case where petitioner was denied reimbursement of medical bills on account of non-renewable of medical diary.

2.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that issue aforesaid has already been considered by this Court in the case of Sita Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2007 (6) WLC (Raj.) 309 and also in the case of Bishan Lal Gupta vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2006 WLC (Raj.) UC 268. Therein, it was held that merely nonrenewable of medical diary cannot be ground for denial of reimbursement of bills produced by the petitioner. It was held to be a hyper technical ground for denial of benefit.

3.

Learned counsel for respondent/s submits that when rules provides renewal of diary then petitioner was under on obligation to get it renewed after issuance of PPO and GPO. Accordingly, he is not entitled for benefit as claimed in the writ petition.

4.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

5.

It is not in dispute that there is failure on the part of petitioner to get renewal of medical diary, however, the facts further remain that issue aforesaid has already been decided by this Court in the case of Sita Ram (supra) and in the case of Bishan Lal Gupta (supra). In both the cases, very same default was not found to be fatal to deny reimbursement of medical bills. Thus, present matter is covered by the judgments referred to above. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to reimburse medical bills raised by the petitioner after proper scrutiny and to the extent, it is admissible in favour of petitioner.

6.

Compliance of the direction aforesaid may be made by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed off.