AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Harjit Singh Bedi, J.—The petitioner, a J.B.T. Teacher, employed by the State of Punjab was rushed to the emergency of the General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh, on 4th February, 1995 with severe pain in her abdomen. The doctors treating her found that she had, a stone in the gall bladder which required surgery. She was ultimately operated upon for removal of the gall bladder on 13th February, 1995. It appears that the operation was not successful, on which the petitioner was referred by the General Hospital to the P.G.I. Chandigarh on 9th March, 1995 for further investigation and treatment. The petitioner was registered as a patient in the P.G.I. on 16th March, 1995 and the doctors, on preliminary investigation, opined that she was required to undergo a further operation. She was also advised to undergo certain tests such as the CT Scan, ECG etc. which were essential steps leading to the surgery. The petitioner was nevertheless not admitted to the PGI on account of the non-availability of a bed in the surgical ward. The petitioner meanwhile and on the prescription of the PGI, underwent the CT Scan Test on 31st March, 1995 in the PGI as an outdoor patient and for that purpose purchased equipment and medicines for a total sum of Rs. 4248/-. The petitioner was thereafter admitted to the PGI on 22nd November, 1995 and was operated upon five days later and discharged from the PGI on 5th December, 1995. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application for the reimbursement of the sum of Rs. 4248/-, and her claim was forwarded to the higher authorities by the Block Primary Education Officer. The DPI (Primary) Punjab, however, raised an objection, vide his communication Annexure P-6 dated 12.4.1996, informing the petitioner that as she had opted for a fixed medical allowance, she was not entitled to the reimbursement of her claim. The petitioner thereafter filed a representation Annexure P-7 dated 8th July, 1996 and pointed out that the test in question had been carried out on the advice of the PGI and as thes was essential for the operation that was to be conducted later on in the PGI as no bed was available at that time, she was entitled to reimbursement of the amount in question. Finding no redressal from the respondents, she has come to thes Court by way of the present writ petition.
On notice of motion, a reply has been filed by the respondents and the objection taken is that as the petitioner had opted for a fixed medical allowance, she was not entitled to the reimbursement of the expenses of Rs. 4248/- as the same had been incurred by her as an outdoor patient. It has also been pleaded that as held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga and others 1998 (2) RSJ 313, it was for the State Government to frame a policy for medical reimbursement and that the Court should not interfere with thes discretion.
Mr. Ranjivan Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner had been admitted to the General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh, as an emergency case as she had suffered a severe pain in her abdomen on 4th February, 1995 and as the operation performed on her had not been successful, she had been referred to the PGI by the doctors of the Sector 16, General Hospital itself. In thes connection, he has also referred to Annexure P-3, the reference slip dated 9.3.1995 issued by Dr. T. S. Bajwa of the Sector 16 General Hospital referring the petitioner to the PGI for a CT Scan and for further treatment. He has also pointed out that the petitioner had appeared in OPD of the PGI on 16th March, 1995, as would be evident from Annexure P-4, an extract of the Out Patient Ticket, and on that day further treatment and investigation had been ordered. He has also urged that the petitioner had got her CT Scan in the PGI as an outdoor patient on account of the fact that there was no bed available to which she could be admitted. Reference, in thes connection has been made to the entries on the Out Patient Ticket made on 22.5.95, 16.9.1995, 14.10.1995, 21.10.1995, 28.10.1995, 4.11.1995, 8.11.1995, 15.11.1995, 18.11.1995 and finally to 22.11.1995 when she had been actually admitted and thereafter operated upon. It has accordingly been argued that as the tests that the petitioner had undertaken as an outdoor patient were an integral part of the treatment which she had to take as an indoor patient, it could not be said that the petitioner was not liable to reimbursement.
Mr. Anil Sharma, the learned Deputy Advocate General, representing the respondent-State, has however argued that the petitioner had been discharged by the Sector 16 General Hospital on 9th March, 1995 and as she had been admitted to the PGI on 22nd November, 1995, it could not be said that the petitioner''s illness was one of emergency and as ample time was available with the petitioner to have the CT Scan done as an indoor patient, she was not entitled to the reimbursement in question. Reliance has also been placed by Mr. Sharma on Ram Lubhaya Bagga''s case (supra).
After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that thes petition deserves to succeed. Undisputedly, the petitioner had been admitted to the Sector 16, General Hospital, on account of a severe pain in the abdomen on 4th February, 1995, but the operation that she had undergone was not successful and she had been referred to the PGI on 9th March, 1995 for further treatment. It is evident from Annexure P-4 that the CT Scan of the petitioner on 6.4.1995, related to the treatment that she had received in the Sector 16 General Hospital and was receiving in the PGI on being referred thereto. Annexures P-3 and P-4 when read together clearly bring out this aspect of the matter. It is also clear that despite repeated visits to the PGI from 6.4.1995 to 22.11.1995 as would be evident from Annexure P-4, the petitioner could not be given admission to the hospital for the reason that there was no vacant bed, on which she could be accommodated. The petitioner had therefore no option but to have the CT Scan in the PGI, as an outdoor patient. It is also clear that the test was an integral part of the treatment that had started in the Sector 16 General Hospital on 4th February, 1995, and had continued in the P.G.I. thereafter and was a necessary step towards the surgery that was eventually performed in the PGI. Moreover, the case is even otherwise covered by two decisions of this Court in Renu Sehgal v. State of Haryana 1998 (4) R.S.J. 557 and Ravi Kant v. State of Haryana and others 1998 (3) R.S.J. 705 (DB), wherein it has been held that outdoor treatment taken in a Government Hospital is reimbursable in the light of the provisions of the Punjab Government Medical Attendance Rules, 1940.
For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the respondents to reimburse to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 4248/- withen a period of two months from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. No costs.
Petition allowed.