Prem Sagar Sharma vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Others

Manju Goel, J.—The petitioner retired as an Additional District and Sessions Judge, Delhi on 1.6.1989 on reaching the age of superannuation. He is claiming reimbursement of medical bills from 15.03.2004 to 17.03.2004 for his treatment from Noida Medical Centre Hospital on having a cardiac arrest. As it was an emergency and he could not afford to reach any hospital in Delhi and Noida Medical Centre Hospital was more easily reachable for the petitioner at that point of time, he took the treatment from there. Subsequently, this Centre was also included in the approved list of hospitals. The writ petition is opposed on the ground that the petitioner was not a member of Delhi Government Health Scheme (DGHS). It is not denied that the petitioner required emergency treatment or that the petitioner actually received the treatment for which reimbursement is being claimed. Mr. Uppal appearing for the petitioner referred to the judgment of this Court in the cases of Smt. Promlesh Bhatnagar Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation and Another, and S.K. Sharma and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, to show that the petitioner is eligible to get the reimbursement as a retired Government servant could not have been denied the facility of reimbursement on the simple g round that the petitioner was not a holder of DGHS card. In the case of Mahendra Pal Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , this Court held that a retired Government servant entitled to medical reimbursement could not be denied reimbursement on the ground that the hospital in which the treatment was taken, was not in the panel at the relevant time. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also cited the judgment in the case of M.L. Kamra v. Lt. Governor 2003 2 AD(Delhi) 208 on the issue of empanelment. None of these judgments were subsequently challenged either in LPAs or in SLPs. Accordingly, there is no reason as to why this Court should differ with these judgments. Following these judgments, I find that the petitioner could not be denied the benefit of medical reimbursement as would have been admissible to him had he been a card holder. It is stated at the Bar that the petitioner now holds a card and has paid what was required to be paid to be a member of DGHS. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to process the bills of the petitioner and reimburse the petitioner for whatever amount the petitioner would have been entitled to had he been a card holder of DGHS during the period he received the treatment.