Judgment:
CWP No.20975 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.20975 of 2012 Date of decision:
19. 03.2013 Pawan Kumar Gupta ......Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab & ors......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr.Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate and Ms.Sonal Datta, Advocate for the petitioner(s).Mr.Anant Kataria, AAG, Punjab.
Mr.Suvir Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) Smt.
Tripta Devi, wife of the petitioner, was diagnosed as patient of complicated chronic hepatitis-C disease by PGIMr.Chandigarh and was admitted for treatment on 16.11.2006.
She was discharged from the Hospital on 19.11.2006.
However, she was coming to the Hospital for follow-up treatment.
The petitioner, who is a retiree of the Punjab Government, submitted the bills for reimbursement for the expenses spent for treatment of his wife as indoor patient and also for follow-up treatment taken in OPD amounting to Rs.2,12,708.75 paise vide Anenxure P-2.
On 3.5.2007, the petitioner further submitted another set of bills in respect of treatment of his wife amounting to Rs.96,527/- vide Annexure P-3.
The petitioner also sent original medical bills along with administrative approval for verification and its payment.
It is the case of the petitioner that the State of Punjab had issued various notifications on 1.9.2000, 19.11.2001, 21.7.2004 and CWP No.20975 o”
2. 10.9.2007 wherein 27 diseases have been notified as chronic diseases.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the disease of hepatitis-C from which the wife of the petitioner was suffering, is also included in the said list of chronic diseases.
However, respondent No.2 declined to release the payment of medical bills vide order Annexure P-7 and P-8 stating that the treatment taken by the wife of the petitioner was not an indoor patient and the same cannot be released on the ground that the treatment was taken prior to the issuance of instructions dated 10.9.2007 whereby the disease of hepatitis-C was declared as a chronic disease enabling the patient of the said disease to claim reimbursement of even the expenditure incurred as outdoor patient.
Thus, the respondents have denied the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the instructions dated 10.9.2007 cannot be applied retrospectively and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the reimbursement as claimed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the various judgments produced before this Court.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner is entitled to the expenses incurred by him on the treatment of his wife for the said disease w.e.f.16.11.2006 upto 19.11.2006 being indoor patient.
What is being projected herein is that the remaining amount was spent by the petitioner on the treatment of his wife as an outdoor patient and reimbursement of such expenses was not permissible earlier to the issuance of notification dated 10.9.2007 as the treatment was taken prior thereto.
While denying the claim of the petitioner, the respondents have very conveniently ignored a vital fact that the treatment taken by the wife of the petitioner as an outdoor patient was necessarily a follow-up treatment after her admission in the hospital on 16.11.2006.
The mater is squarely covered by a CWP No.20975 o”
3. judgment of this Court in Mukesh Kumar Gupta v.
Chairman, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Patiala and others 2007(4) SCT 8.and also the judgment in Ravi Kant versus Sate of Haryana 1998 (4) SCT 206.wherein it has been held that the follow- up treatment after indoor treatment has to be tagged on to the indoor treatment.
The judgment in the case of Surjit Singh versus State of Punjab 2005(2) SCT 13.also supports the same view.
In this view of the matter, the stand taken by the respondents is wholly erroneous.
No other defence has been taken by the respondents to deny the claim of the petitioner on merits.
Thus, the present petition is allowed and consequently, the order Annexures P-7 and P-8 are quashed.
The respondents are directed to reimbuRs.the claim of the petitioner within two months from today along with interest @ 6% per annum.
March 19, 2013 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE