Allowed

Prabhatilal Sharma v. State Finance Departmentors

Rajasthan HC30 May 2023CW/17151/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan held that a retired pensioner is entitled to medical reimbursement for treatment in a recognized hospital. The Court directed State respondents to process the claim within three months if the petitioner had a valid diary prior to the incident.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider the petitioner's case for medical reimbursement within three months of the certified copy of this order.

Prabhatilal Sharma Vs State Finance Departmentors — Medical Negligence | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/012484]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17151/2012

¶4

Prabhatilal Sharma Son of Late Shri Narain Lal Ji, D-46, Green Park, parli Meena, Agra Road, Jaipur

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary To The Government, Department Of Finance, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur

¶8

Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan Jaipur Through Its Mamber Secretary C

¶9

Treasury Officer, Jaipur City, Jaipur

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.K. Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rohit Choudhary, Dy.GC.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶13

Order

¶14

30/05/2023

¶15

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

¶16

following prayer:

¶17

“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that Your Lordships’ may graciously be pleased to admit and allow this writ petition; call for and examine entire record and - a) By an appropriate writ order and direction in the nature thereof the action of the respondents of not making medical reimbursement to the petitioner for the treatment on account of non renewal of medical diary may kindly be quashed and set aside. b) By an appropriate writ, order and direction respondents may kindly be directed to reimburse medical expenses and claimed with 24% interest thereon from the date of submission of bill till the date of actual payment.

[2023/RJJP/012484]

[CW-17151/2012]

(2 of 4)

c) Any other order as this Hon’ble High Court may deem fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present writ petition be also passed in favour of the humble petitioner and against the respondents.”

¶22

Perusal of the contents and documents annexed with the writ petition indicates that the petitioner is a retired pensioner and on 29.03.2009 he was admitted in Intensive Care Unit at Apex Hospital, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur where the doctors diagnozed to have Aneurysm (Beeny) with diffuse subarachnoid haemorrhage, thereafter the petitioner was referred to Santokba Durlabhji Hospital where his surgery was conducted and he remained in hospital till 14.04.2009. After recovery the petitioner submitted an application before the respondents for reimbursement of the amount of medical bills which was expanded in the treatment. Counsel submits that vide order dated 08.01.2010 and 22.01.2010 the respondents have refused to reimburse the amount on a technical count that medical diary of the petitioner was renewed on 29.05.2009 while the treatment was taken by the petitioner on 31.03.2009 till 04.04.2009. Feeling aggrieved by such action of the respondents the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing instant petition.

¶23

Learned counsel for the State respondents has opposed the averments mentioned in the petition and submitted that the petitioner has not renewed his medical diary for the intervening period in which the treatment was taken. Counsel submits that medical diary was renewed by the petitioner for the financial year 2009-2010 on 29.05.2009, hence the respondents have not caused any illegality in refusing the medical claim of the petitioner.

[2023/RJJP/012484]

[CW-17151/2012]

(3 of 4)

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

¶28

This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner is a retired pensioner and under critical situation he was admitted in Apex Hospital on 29.03.2009 but looking to his critical condition he was referred to Santokba Durlabhji Hospital where his surgery was conducted and in his treatment he has occurred expenses. After recovery the petitioner submitted an application for reimbursement of the medical bills but the respondents have refused to make payment of the same on a technical ground that medical diary of the petitioner was not renewed for the period in which the treatment was taken. Perusal of the documents annexed with the writ petition i.e. Annexure-2 clearly indicates that for the financial year 2008-2009 the petitioner got his medical diary renewed on 29.07.2008 by depositing the subscription amount of Rs.4,00/- meaning thereby the petitioner was having the valid medical diary and he is entitled to get the amount of expenses by him in his treatment at Apex Hospital and Santokba Durlabhji Hospital as per the prevailing rates of approved hospital. 6. In view of the factual aspects of the matter, this petition stands disposed of with directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for reimbursement of the amount as per the applicable rates of recognized hospital. The respondents are directed to do needful within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶29

It is made clear that in case compliance of this order is not made within the above stipulated time, then the petitioner would be entitled to get interest @6% per annum.

(4 of 4)

[2023/RJJP/012484]

[CW-17151/2012]

The petitioner is expected to provide all original medical bills and necessary assistance to the respondents.

¶34

All pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed

¶35

¶36

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶37

KuD/22

Prabhatilal Sharma v. State Finance Departmentors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhatilal Sharma v. State Finance Departmentors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kaasam Son of Jameel Vs State of Rajasthan

Saajid Son of Waheeda Vs State of Rajasthan

Prakash Chand Jatav Vs State and Ors.

Yogesh Saxena Son of Late Shri Dinesh Chand Vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Limited

Hanuman Prasad Son of Heera Ram, Vs State of Rajasthan

The Director,Sec.Edu. Raj Bika Vs Triloki Raman Sharma and Ors.