Allowed

Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC27 Aug 2018CW/3054/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking reimbursement of deceased government servant's medical expenses. The court quashed the rejection order demanding item-wise bills as the hospital did not specify it, directing respondents to examine the claim and pay within two months.

What did the court decide?

The order refusing reimbursement is quashed. Respondents directed to examine the matter de novo and make payment within two months after receiving documents.

Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 3054/2018

¶3

Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar W/o Late Shri Jai Singh, Resident of 620Mohan Nagar, B.J.S. Colony, Jodhpur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, Medical Health & Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

The Director, Pension & Pensioners Welfare Scheme, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

Treasurer Officer, Treasury Office, Sikar.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bohra For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA

¶12

Order

¶13

27/08/2018

¶14

Petitioner Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar is widow and dependent of deceased Govt. Servant Late Jai Singh, who had retired from the post of Sub Inspector. She has filed the present petition for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by her husband in treatment of ‘carcinama base of tongue’ at the S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur.

¶15

Facts apposite for the purposes of this writ petition are that husband of the petitioner was admitted for treatment and was given radiotherapy (IMRT) from 13.10.2014 to 14.07.2015 costing him Rs.1,03,400/- but thereafter his disease was diagnosed as of advanced stage and therefore required biological weekly therapy

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

[CW-3054/2018]

¶18

for six weeks costing Rs.5,40,000/- for the doses and Rupees one lakh for IMRT radiotherapy, as per the report of Medical Board. In these circumstances, a request was made by her husband for increasing the ceiling limit of expenses. Thereafter, husband of petitioner again remained under treatment from 26.12.2013 to 13.01.2014 and submitted a claim for reimbursement of medical bills amounting to Rs.3,40,622/-. The authority concerned, in turn, sent a communication on 07.12.2016 for submitting the medical bills through hospital and in compliance thereof the bills were later on sent for reimbursement through the hospital at the request of husband of petitioner who died in the interregnum and the respondent authority vide order dated 04.05.2017 rejected the claim medical reimbursement on the ground that the bills were not prepared item-wise.

¶19

Learned counsel submits that petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by her husband as the treatment was taken at a Government Hospital and under the relevant rules she is entitled to get entire reimbursement of his treatment. Learned counsel would contend that the order rejecting reimbursement of bills is totally baseless on the ground that concerned hospital did not send the bill item-wise and for the treatment earlier lumpsum amount was paid whereas the petitioner has legitimate right to get reimbursement of the entire amount incurred by her husband for his treatment. In support thereof, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in SBCWP No.5211/2010 (Pratap Singh Gehlot Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

¶20

(3 of 4)

¶21

[CW-3054/2018]

¶22

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submits that the husband of petitioner had not submitted the bills item-wise as required for grant of reimbursement of medical expenses. Learned counsel further urged that the medical claim has not yet been rejected but medical bills are sought as per relevant provisions of law as such writ petition is premature and no cause of action arises to the petitioner.

¶23

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶24

There is no quarrel in the factual position that petitioner is widow of deceased government servant and is entitled for reimbursement of the amount incurred in treatment of her husband and same cannot be denied to her by a welfare State. The attitude of the authority concerned in denying reimbursement of expenses incurred on the ground that the bills were not itemwise cannot be countenanced in view of the fact that treatment was taken on various different dates and medicines were also purchased on different dates and different bills were prepared and furthermore while communicating about sending the bills through hospital it was not mentioned that the bills should be item-wise. When the bills sent thorough hospital are duly verified by the concerned doctor Associate Professor of Radiotherapy Department, Swai Man Singh Hospital, Jaipur, now asking the petitioner to submit those bills again preparing them item-wise, cannot be said to be proper. The claim of the petitioner for reimbursement of

¶25

(4 of 4)

¶26

[CW-3054/2018]

¶27

medical expenses, in my considered view, cannot be denied on this count.

¶28

Resultantly, instant writ petition is allowed, the order refusing/deferring reimbursement of medical bills is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to examine the matter de novo objectively and make payment of the amount incurred by husband of the petitioner on his treatment at S.M.S. Hospital Jaipur as per law, upon her furnishing desired information/documents within 15 days. The respondents are further directed to decide the matter within a period of two months thereafter.

¶29

No order as to costs.

Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Bhanwar Kanwar v. State and Ors.

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

Anil Kumar Pahadia Vs State and Ors.

Ganesh and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Ghanshyam Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Jibrail Ali Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mohan Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Krishna Kant Joshi Vs Rsrtc and Anr.