Ashok Bapna Vs. State of Rajasthan

Ashok Bapna vs State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Apr 27, 2004

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/755312

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/755312
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Anil Dev Singh, C.J. and; Harbans Lal, J.
Decided On: Apr 27, 2004
Case Number: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3826 of 2003
Subject: Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ] Determination as to Juvenile - Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged oc...

Key legal issue: Service
Acts & sections: Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1970 - Rules 6 and 7; Constitution of India - Article 21

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ashok Bapna

Advocate Party in Person

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Advocate G.S. Gill, Addl. Adv. General

Legal References

Acts: Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1970 - Rules 6 and 7; Constitution of India - Article 21
Cases Referred: In Shanker Lal v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.
Reported In: RLW2004(3)Raj1714; 2004(3)WLC19

Excerpt

- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - when the petitioner was referred to the escorts hospital and the same was recognized as a referral hospital for treatment of the heart ailment, we fail to appreciate why the state did not honour the full claim of the petitioner for the amount charged by the hospital for angioplasty etc......treatment at the escorts heart institute, new delhi.3. once the petitioner was referred to escorts heart institute for treatment, the state ought to have reimbursed the petitioner to the extent of the amount spent by him for his treatment in the escorts hospital. we cannot ignore the fact that the escorts hospital had advised the petitioner for an early angioplasty. in case the petitioner would have left escorts hospital with a view to have the angioplasty done at sms hospital jaipur, he would have exposed himself to grave risk. anything could have happened during the journey. when the life of the petitioner was in peril, he cannot be expected to act in a manner which could jeopardise his chances of survival. in view of the exigency of the situation, he tool; the treatment at escorts hospital.4. in surjit singh v. state of punjab (1), it was observed as follows:-'it is otherwise important to bear in mind that self preservation of one's life is the necessary concomitant of the right to life enshrined in article 21 of the constitution of india, fundamental in nature, sacred, precious and inviolable. the importance and validity of the duty and right to self-preservation has a species in the right of self defence in criminal law. centuries ago thinkers of this great land conceived of such right had recognised it. attention can usefully be drawn to versus 17, 18, 20 and 22 in chapter 16 of the garuda purana (a dialogue suggested between the divine and garuda, the bird) in the words of the divine.'5. from the above, it is clear that the supreme court held that self preservation of one's life is necessary concomitant of the right to life and, thus, a fundamental right. when the petitioner was referred to the escorts hospital and the same was recognized as a referral hospital for treatment of the heart ailment, we fail to appreciate why the state did not honour the full claim of the petitioner for the amount charged by the hospital for angioplasty etc.6. in shanker lal.....

Full Judgment

Anil Dev Singh, C.J.

1. The petitioner was employed by the State Government as Social Scientist in the Medical & Health Department. On 13.7.1998 and 3.8.1998 he suffered to heart attacks. He was admitted in the SMS Hospital for treatment. The Principal of SMS Hospital constituted a medical board comprising of Dr. K.S. Yadav, Dr. R.K. Saxena and Dr. S.K. Chuttani. Two members of the medical board were of the opinion that the petitioner should undergo Thallium Studies And Related Investigations at Escorts Heart Institute, New Delhi. The recommendation of the board, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:-

'He needs further evaluation by stress thallium studies and related investigations and Coronary Angiography and subsequent Angiography/CABG, if indicated. As these facilities are not available in Rajas-than State, so he may be referred to Escorts Heart Institute, New Delhi.'

The petitioner, pursuant to the medical boards's recommendation, proceeded to Delhi and got himself admitted in the Escorts Heart Instituted on 20.8.1998. On 21.8.1998 he underwent coronary angiography. On availability of the result of the angiography he was advised by the Escorts Heart Institute to undergo early angioplasty. Accordingly he underwent the angioplasty on 22.8.1998 at Escorts Heart Institute. Thereafter on 28.8.1998 he was discharged from the hospital. It appears that the petitioner incurred a total expenditure of Rs. 1,66,930/- on investigations and treatment. The petitioner made a representation 3.5.2002 to the State for reimbursement of the aforesaid amount. By letter dated 14.5.2002 of the Deputy Secretary to the government a sum of Rs. one lac was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner against the medical claim of Rs. 1,66,930/- The petitioner being aggrieved of the fact that an amount of Rs. one lac was sanctioned against the claim of Rs. 1,66,930/-, has filed the instant petition.

2. It is not disputed that two members of the medical board, constituted by the Principal of SMS Hospital, were of the opinion that the petitioner needs evaluation by Stress Thallium Studies & Related Investigations and angiography & angioplasty, if indicated. Since the facilities were not available in Rajasthan, the medical board was of the opinion that the petitioner be referred to Escort Hospital at New Delhi. Since the medical board had referred the petitioner to the Escorts Heart Institute, New Delhi on the ground that the treatment was not available in the State, the petitioner in order to preserve his life, got himself admitted in the Escorts Heart Institute where after investigations he underwent angioplasty. There is no dispute that the Escorts Heart & Research Centre was one of the hospitals approved for treatment of heart ailment outside the State of Rajasthan. In the circumstances, therefore, the petitioner was entitled for reimbursement of the amount, which he spent for his treatment at the Escorts Heart Institute, New Delhi.

3. Once the petitioner was referred to Escorts Heart Institute for treatment, the State ought to have reimbursed the petitioner to the extent of the amount spent by him for his treatment in the Escorts Hospital. We cannot ignore the fact that the Escorts Hospital had advised the petitioner for an early Angioplasty. In case the petitioner would have left Escorts Hospital with a view to have the Angioplasty done at SMS Hospital Jaipur, he would have exposed himself to grave risk. Anything could have happened during the journey. When the life of the petitioner was in peril, he cannot be expected to act in a manner which could jeopardise his chances of survival. In view of the exigency of the situation, he tool; the treatment at Escorts Hospital.

4. In Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab (1), it was observed as follows:-

'It is otherwise important to bear in mind that self preservation of one's life is the necessary concomitant of the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, fundamental in nature, sacred, precious and inviolable. The importance and validity of the duty and right to self-preservation has a species in the right of self defence in criminal law. Centuries ago thinkers of this Great land conceived of such right had recognised it. Attention can usefully be drawn to versus 17, 18, 20 and 22 in Chapter 16 of the Garuda Purana (A Dialogue suggested between the Divine and Garuda, the bird) in the words of the Divine.'

5. From the above, it is clear that the Supreme Court held that self preservation of one's life is necessary concomitant of the right to life and, thus, a fundamental right. When the petitioner was referred to the Escorts Hospital and the same was recognized as a referral hospital for treatment of the heart ailment, we fail to appreciate why the State did not honour the full claim of the petitioner for the amount charged by the hospital for Angioplasty etc.

6. In Shanker Lal v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. (2), it was recognized by this court that the Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre, New Delhi has been recognized as a referred hospital for treatment of heart ailment of government servants, It appears to us that there was no reason to deny the petitioner full reimbursement of the amount which he spent for his treatment in Escorts Hospital.

7. Thus it is apparent from the aforesaid decision's that a government officer is entitled to treatment outside the Stale when his case has been referred to a particular hospital for treatment.

8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the petitioner was entitled for reimbursement of Rs. 1,66,930/- as that was the total expenditure incurred by him for his treatment at Escorts Heart Institute, New Delhi, since the petitioner has already received a sum of Rs. one lac, the remaining amount of Rs. 66,930/- is required to be reimbursed to him. Therefore, we direct the State Government to reimburse the amount of Rs. 66,930/- to the petitioner within four weeks.

9. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 2004 Same Parties Ashok Bapna vs State of Rajasthan Same Subject Service Same Judge Anil Dev Singh, C.J. and; Harbans Lal, J. Acts & Sections Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1970 - R...

Service