Smt. Smita Nagalapur v. State of Karnataka

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:40343-DB( WA(No.(1662(of(2025( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010644112025( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

RD DATED(THIS(THE(3 (DAY(OF(AUGUST,(2026(

PRESENT(

THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(D(K(SINGH(

AND((

THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(T.M.NADAF(

WRIT(APPEAL(NO.(1662(OF(2025((S-RES)(

BETWEEN:( (( SMT.,SMITA,NAGALAPUR,, W/O,MAHESH,H., AGED,ABOUT,40,YEARS,, OCC:,CIVIL,JUDGE,, R/AT,QUARTERS,NO.2,, JUDGES,QUARTERS,,, AIWAN-E-SHAHI,,, KALABURGI,-,585,102., , PRESENTLY,WORKING,AS, PRL.,CIVIL,JUDGE,AND,JMFC,, CHAMRAJNAGARA, Digitally signedtiby R/AT,A-19GF,,PWD,QUARTERS,, REKHA0R CHAMARAJANAGARA,-,571,313., Location: …APPELLANT,High Courttiof (BY,SRI.,SHIVAPRASAD,SHANTANAGOUDAR.,,ADVOCATE), Karnataka AND:( (

1., STATE,OF,KARNATAKA,, THROUGH,THE,CHIEF,SECRETARY,, GOVERNMENT,OF,KARNATAKA,, BENGALURU,-,560,001., ,

2., THE,HON'BLE,HIGH,COURT,OF,KARNATAKA,, BY,THE,REGISTRAR,GENERAL,,, ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:40343-DB( WA(No.(1662(of(2025( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010644112025( ( ( BENGALURU,-,560,001.,

3., PRINCIPAL,DISTRICT,AND,SESSION,JUDGE,, CONTROLLING,OFFICER,, DISTRICT,COURT,COMPLEX,, KALABURGI,-,585,102., ,

4., CHIEF,ADMINISTRATIVE,OFFICER,, DISTRICT,AND,SESSION,JUDGE,, DISTRICT,COURT,COMPLEX,, KALABURGI,-,585,102., ,

5., CHIEF,EXECUTIVE,OFFICER,, MANIPAL,HOSPITAL,,MYSURU,, MANIPAL,HOSPITAL,PRIVATE,LIMITED,, (FORMERLY,COLUMBIA,ASIA,HOSPITAL,, PRIVATE,LIMITED), 85-86,,MYSURU,BENGALURU,, RING,ROAD,JUNCTION,,, BANNI,MANTAP,'A',LAYOUT,, SIDDIQUI,NAGAR,, MUSURU,-,570,015., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,B.RAVINDRANATH,,AGA,FOR,R1,, ,,,,,,SRI.,M.A.,SUBRAMANI,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R2,,R3,AND,R4), , , THIS,WRIT,APPEAL,IS,FILED,UNDER,SECTION,4,OF,THE, KARNATAKA,HIGH,COURT,ACT,,1961,,PRAYING,TO,SET,ASIDE, THE, ORDER, DATED:23.08.2025, PASSED, BY, THE, LEARNED, SINGLE, JUDGE, IN, WP, NO.11097/2024, AND, THEREBY, ALLOW, THE,WRIT,PETITION,AS,PRAYED,FOR,AND,ETC.,,

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellate/petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 23.08.2025, passed by the writ Court in WP.No.11097/2024, filed by the appellant.

¶2The grievance of the petitioner, who is presently working as Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chamarajnagara, is that she had incurred medical expenses for a sum of Rs.8,23,443/- while giving birth to a premature child. However, the reimbursement has been made to the extent of Rs.3,72,909/-, on the ground that the Manipal Hospital is not one of the empanelled hospital of the State Government, and the Government cannot

reimburse bills to the extent raised by a hospital, which is not empanelled, under the Karnataka Judicial Officers (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2009.

¶3Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant/petitioner went to the Government hospital, when she started having labour pain. However, the delivery was expected to be premature, she was referred to Columbia Asia Hospital, Mysuru, by the said Government hospital. On reference made by the Government hospital, she went to the Columbia Asia Hospital, Mysuru, for delivery of a premature child. As the complications arose, she remained in hospital from

11.01.2022 to 17.03.2022 with the premature born child.

¶4The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant/petitioner went to the Columbia Asia Hospital, not out of her choice, but on reference made by the Government hospital, where she first went to labour the child. Neither, the Government Hospital

Authorities nor the petitioner would know that the Columbia Asia Hospital was taken over by Manipal Hospital. Manipal Hospital is not one of the empanelled hospitals of the State Government. However, for this reason, the petitioner cannot be blamed nor be punished as she did not opt Manipal Hospital, but she went to Columbia Hospital as referred by the Government Hospital Authorities. It appears that in the meantime, the Manipal Hospital has taken over by Columbia Asia Hospital.

¶5The take over of Columbia Asia Hospital by Manipal Hospital happened only in the year 2021. If the appellant/petitioner was aware of this fact, she might have not gone to the Columbia Asia Hospital/Manipal Hospital. The petitioner is being penalized for no fault of her and therefore, submission of the petitioner is that she is entitled for full reimbursement as per the Karnataka Judicial Officers (Medial Attendance) Rules 2009.

¶6On the other hand Sri. M.A.Subramani, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Sri.B.Ravindranth, learned Additional Government for the State, have submitted that Rule 5(7) of 2009 Rules, provides for reimbursement of medical expenses under those rules. As Manipal Hospital is not one of the empanelled hospitals, the petitioner would be entitled only to the rates charged by the empanelled hospitals. The appellant/petitioner has already been paid/reimbursed to that extent by making payment of Rs.3,72,909/-

¶7We have considered the submissions. Facts are not in dispute. Rule 5(7) of 2009 Rules provides for reimbursement, which reads as under: "(7) In respect of expenses including accommodation where such treatment is taken, incurred by a judicial officer for the medial attendance and treatment obtained by him and for members of his family in any place other than in a diagnostic centre, hospital or dispensary maintained by the State Government or an hospital or dispensary for the time being notified by the

Karnataka Government under Karnataka Government Servants (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1963 or Karnataka Legislature (Members' Medical Attendance) Rules, 1968, he shall be entitled for reimbursement of the expenses incurred to the same extent as he is entitled under these rules of imbursement of expenses incurred by him for medical attendance and treatment obtained in such hospital or dispensary."

¶8Under the rules, if Judicial Officer takes the treatment in a hospital not empanelled by the Government, he/she would be entitled for reimbursement to the extent of the rates charged by the officers for the empanelled hospital. In the said circumstances, we would not have interfered with the stand of the State Government. However, in the present case, the appellate/petitioner was referred to the Columbia Asia Hospital, which was empanelled hospitals by the District Hospital Authorities. The petitioner also would not know whether the Columbia Asia Hospital was taken over by the Manipal Hospital. Had this fact known to the petitioner/appellant, she might not have ventured to go to

the Columbia Asia Hospital, but she would have gone to some other empanelled hospital. She did not go to Columbia Asia Hospital out of her choice, but she was referred by the Government Hospital.

¶9We are therefore of the view that, she cannot be penalized. We therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and order.

¶10As the petitioner was also not careful, while being referred to Columbia Asia hospital. We direct the State Government to bear half of the amount of Rs.4,50,000/-, inasmuch as the petitioner had already been reimbursed Rs.3,72,900/- and thus, the petitioner should be paid Rs.2,25,000/- further towards her medical expenses incurred by her, while taking treatment in Columbia Asia Hospital/Manipal Hospital.

¶11We have passed this order in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and it should not be

treated as precedent in other cases. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of.

Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 ct-vn