State of Punjab vs Prem Kumar

Swatanter Kumar, J.—This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.3.1997 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot. The learned first Appellate Court while affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the State of Punjab without any order as to costs. Reference to necessary facts would be advantageous to discuss the main issue raised by the parties before this Court.

Plaintiff Prem Kumar filed a suit for declaration praying that he was entitled to the reimbursement of the medical payment of Rs. 17632.90 which he was compelled to incur as a result of non-fatal accident. He was entitled to the claim of reimbursement in accordance with the rules and regulations. He also prayed for grant of interest at the rate of 2% per month on this amount from the date of the bill till realisation.

The suit was contested by the defendants who raised objection in regard to maintainability of the suit and also stated that C.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana where the petitioner was treated is not a recognised hospital/institution by the State of Punjab for treatment of its employees. As such he was not entitled to claim the reimbursement of the medical bill. In the replication filed, the plaintiff had averred that it was a case of emergency and he had no choice and reiterated his claim for reimbursement with interest.

The learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 23.8.1995 decreed the suit of the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 12% per annum till realisation. The appeal preferred by the State was dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court, as already noticed.

The learned counsel for the State has mainly argued that the judgment and decree is liable to be set aside and in any case the Courts have fallen in error of law in granting interest on the reimbursement of the medical bills.

The learned Courts below have come to a concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiff-respondent herein had met with a non-fatal accident and was compelled to take treatment at the Christian Medical Hospital, Ludhiana. The plaintiff had also produced on record medical reimbursement bills Ex. P.2 and Ex. P.3 which showed the treatment given to the plaintiff at the said medical college from 25.3.1993 to 25.5.1983 and lateron from 5.8.1983 to 22.8.1983, This conclusion of the Courts below is based upon the appreciation of documentary and oral evidence. I see no reason to differ with this concurrent finding of fact.

It is a settled principle of law that in given circumstances a Government employee may be left with no option but to take treatment from a hospital, which is nearby in the case of emergency. If that be so, it will be totally unjust and unfair to deny the claim of reimbursement to the plaintiff merely because the hospital was not recognised by the State Government for treatment of its employees. Once it is established as a matter of fact that the plaintiff, had met with an accident and, he received the treatment, then his claim for reimbursement cannot be denied on the ground put forward by the learned counsel for the State in regard to non-recognition of the hospital, which otherwise is a hospital of repute. The plaintiff had discharged his onus in this regard. A right to life would obviously include such a protection to the Government employee as emergency of the kind as indicated in the facts of the present case leaves the employee with no option but to take treatment in a nearby hospital, Resultantly, I see no reason to interfere in this findings arrived at by the learned Courts below.

However, the second contention raised on behalf of the State merits to be accepted that no interest could have been awarded by the learned trial Court in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Parkash Gargi v. State of Punjab 1997(1) SLR 177. The Hon''ble Apex Court specifically disallowed the claim of 12% interest granted by the High Court in that case and held that it will be inexpedient and improper to direct the State to pay interest on delay in payment of medical reimbursement bills. Thus, the appeal is liable to be partly accepted and the claim of the interest awarded to the plaintiff has to be allowed. However, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the plaintiff has been compelled to litigate un-necessarily for nearly ten years and he succeeded in all Courts and as such he should be entitled to get costs, if not the interest.

There is substance in this submission because the plaintiff had won in both the Courts below and his claim for medical reimbursement appears to be specifically justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, it will be unfair to deny him costs which he has incurred. In order to avoid un- necessary delay and further litigation between the parties in regard to assessment of costs and payment etc., I consider it just and fair that the respondent herein should allowed costs which are assessed at Rs. 2500/- for the entire litigation, which also includes the Court-fee which had been affixed by the plaintiff originally on the plaint.

As a result of the above discussion, this appeal is partly allowed. In the above terms, the plaintiff would be entitled to receive the amount of reimbursement with costs which are assessed at Rs. 2500/-.

Appeal partly allowed.