Disposed¶9

Dr Shuba Ram Jat v. State Animal Husbandary Depors

Rajasthan HC13 Feb 2025CW/8492/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan High Court Jaipur; S.B. Civil Writ Petition 8492/2012; medical reimbursement; emergency treatment in private/unapproved hospital; Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital; 95% artery blockage; stent; rates applicable in approved hospital; medical attendance Rules 2009 retrospective; Shiva Kant Jha v. Union of India AIR 2018 SC 1975; interest 6% per annum; Anoop Kumar Dhand J.; disposed 13/02/2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to make payment of the petitioner's medical bills as per the rates applicable in approved hospitals, within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order; failing timely compliance, interest @ 6% per annum becomes payable. Pending applications disposed of; no order as to costs. ¶9

Dr Shuba Ram Jat Vs State Animal Husbandary Depors — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred on emergent treatment taken at Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital, Jaipur, a private/unapproved hospital, notwithstanding the rejection of his claim on the technical ground that the hospital was not approved. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

It is a settled proposition of law that a person cannot be compelled to undergo treatment in an approved hospital, even in an emergent situation.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

Given the urgency and emergency in which treatment was taken in a private hospital, the respondents could have released the medical bills at the rates applicable in the approved hospital.

¶7

Key takeaways

In view of the ratio in Shiva Kant Jha v. Union of India (AIR 2018 SC 1975), the petition is disposed of with directions to the respondents to make payment to the petitioner at the rates applicable in approved hospitals, within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the order.ratio¶9
If compliance is not made within the stipulated time, the petitioner would be entitled to interest at 6% per annum.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8492/2012, decided 13.02.2025, Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.) by Dr. Shubh Ram Jat against the State of Rajasthan (Animal Husbandry Department) seeking reimbursement of Rs.1,44,695/- incurred on emergent cardiac treatment taken on 23.11.2005 at Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital, Jaipur, a private/non-approved hospital, where 95% arterial blockage was found and a stent implanted. The claim had been rejected on the technical ground that treatment was in an unapproved hospital, the respondents contending that the medical attendance Rules (enforced in 2009) could not apply retrospectively to 2005 treatment. Relying on Shiva Kant Jha v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 1975, the Court held that a person cannot be compelled to undergo treatment in an approved hospital in an emergent situation, and disposed of the petition with directions to pay the medical bills at the rates applicable in approved hospitals within three months of receipt of a certified copy, with interest @ 6% per annum on failure of timely compliance; pending applications disposed; no order as to costs.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:6506]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8492/2012

¶4

Dr. Shubh Ram Jat S/o Shri Gheesa Ram, aged about 51 years, R/o A/23, Hassan Khan Mewat Nagar, Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department, Government Of Rajasthan Governme, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

1. Director, Animal Husbandary, Department, Jaipur. 3. Deputy Director, Animal Husbandary Department, Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Anant Sharma for
	Mr. Manish Lawaniya
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. AjayVerma

¶11

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Order

¶13

13/02/2025

¶14

By way of filing this writ petition, a prayer has been made by the petitioner for issuing a direction to the respondents to make the payment of the medical expenses incurred in his treatment.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner suffered a severe chest pain on 23.11.2005 and under an emergent situation he was admitted in Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital, Jaipur where 95% blockage was found in his artery and in order to save his life, stent was implanted and in the aforesaid process, the petitioner incurred expenses of Rs.1,44,695/-. Counsel submits that after recovery, an application was submitted by the petitioner before the respondents for

[2025:RJ-JP:6506]

[CW-8492/2012]

(2 of 4)

reimbursement of the aforesaid amount but the same has been rejected on a technical count that treatment was taken in the private hospital. Counsel submits that this cannot be a ground to deny the entire medical claim of the petitioner, the respondents could have reimbursed the amount as per the rates applicable in the approved hospital.

¶20

Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the treatment was taken by the petitioner in an unrecognized hospital in the year 2005 and the medical attendance Rules came into enforcement in the year 2009, hence under these circumstances, the aforesaid rules cannot be made applicable with its retrospective effect. Hence under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get any amount towards the medical bills.

¶21

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

¶22

Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner suffered chest pain on 23.11.2005 and looking to his condition, his family member took him to Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital, Jaipur where on examination, it was found that there was 95% blockage in artery, so in order to save the life of the petitioner, the treatment was taken in the said hospital wherein certain amount of expenditure was incurred and the respondents have declined to reimburse the amount of the medical bills on a technical count that the treatment was taken in an unapproved hospital.

[2025:RJ-JP:6506]

[CW-8492/2012]

(3 of 4)

It is a settled proposition of law that a person cannot be compelled to undergo treatment in an approved hospital, even in emergent situation.

¶27

Looking to the urgency and emergency, the treatment was taken in a private hospital hence under these circumstances, respondents could have release the amount of medical bills as per the rates applicable in the approved hospital.

¶28

In the case of Shiva Kant Jha Vs. Union of India (UOI), reported in AIR 2018 SC 1975 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:-

¶29

"It is a settled legal position that the Government employee during his life time or after his retirement is entitled to get the benefit of the medical facilities and no fetters can be placed on his rights. It is acceptable to commonsense, that ultimate decision as to how a patient should be treated vests only with the Doctor, who is well versed and expert both on academic qualification and experience gained. Very little scope is left to the patient or his relative to decide as to the manner in which the ailment should be treated. Speciality Hospitals are established for treatment of specified ailments and services of Doctors specialized in a discipline are availed by patients only to ensure proper, required and safe treatment. Can it be said that taking treatment in Speciality Hospital by itself would deprive a person to claim reimbursement solely on the ground that the said Hospital is not included in the Government Order. The right to medical claim cannot be denied merely because the name of the hospital is not included in the Government Order. The real test must be the factum of treatment....."

¶30

In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shiva Kant (supra), this petition stands disposed of with directions to the respondents to make the payment to the petitioner as per the rates applicable in the approved hospitals

[2025:RJ-JP:6506]

[CW-8492/2012]

(4 of 4)

within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

No order as to costs.

¶38

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶39

Ashu/103

Dr Shuba Ram Jat v. State Animal Husbandary Depors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Shuba Ram Jat v. State Animal Husbandary Depors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Gupta S/O Sh. Bal Kishan Gupta Vs Beawar Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited

Giriraj Prasad Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ravindra Kumar Gurjar S/O Shri Ram Bharosi Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Mrs Neha Mahawar Vs Jodhpur v v v N Ltd. and Anr.

Radhey Shyam Yadav Vs State Education Departmentors

Dr. Lokesh Kumar S/O Hoti Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan