Dismissed

Narinder v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC16 May 2012CWP/1301/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a writ petition seeking reimbursement of medical expenses. The Court held that the claim was not covered by reimbursement instructions due to lack of admission at a government-approved hospital and absence of a medical emergency, distinguishing it from a Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

The claim for reimbursement of ` 4,04,999/- for medical expenses was dismissed.

Narinder Vs State of Haryana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

C.W.P.No.1301 of 2011 Date of Decision:- 16.05.2012

Narinder

....Petitioner(s)

vs.

State of Haryana and others

¶7

....Respondent(s)

¶8

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

¶10

¶11

Present:Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana.

¶13

¶14

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral)

¶15

Petitioner has approached this Court praying for a writ of mandamus directing respondents to release/reimburse the amount of ` 4,04,999/- for the expenses incurred on the medical treatment of his mother, who is stated to have expired in the hospital.

¶16

Notice of the writ petition was issued to the respondents and the reason assigned for not reimbursing the claim as put-forth by the petitioner is that the petitioner did not get done the treatment of his mother from a government approved hospital and in any case, there was no medical emergency at the time of admission of his mother to a private hospital.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the report dated 16.11.2009 ( Annexure P-1 ) which details the death summary of the mother of the petitioner. A perusal of the same does not indicate that she was admitted in an emergency in the hospital.

¶18

C.W.P.No.1301 of 2011

¶19

-2-

¶20

Respondents, on the other hand, has placed reliance upon the report of the Civil Surgeon, Mewat, who is the Competent Authority to assess and decide with regard to claim of medical reimbursement and in his opinion there was no medical emergency in the case of petitioner's mother at the time of admission. The Civil Surgeon has opined this after going through the medical documents and report submitted by the Physician, Government Hospital, Mandikhera. The claim as made by the petitioner in the present writ petition is not covered by the instructions issued by the respondents and accordingly the claim cannot be accepted.

¶21

Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Suman Rakheja vs. State of Haryana and another , (2004) 13 Supreme Court Cases 562 wherein the Supreme Court had granted 75% of the expenditure in excess thereto and 100% medical expenses at the rate of All India Institute of Medical Sciences.

¶22

A perusal of the judgment would show that it was a case of emergency where the patient was rushed to the hospital which is not the position in the present case or in the claim as put-forth by the petitioner. The judgment, therefore, would not be applicable to the case in hand.

¶23

Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands

¶24

dismissed.

¶25

May 16, 2012 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE

Narinder v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narinder v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamlesh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Dinesh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

M.R. Bansal Vs State of Haryana

Balwinder Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Raj Pal Vs State of Haryana & Ors.