State of Haryana and Others v. Rajender Parshad

LAPITA BANERJI, J.(ORAL)

CM-6522-C-2024 This is an application for condonation of delay of 72 days in filing the appeal. Perused the grounds. For the grounds mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 72 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

Main case

In Court's judgm Court's judgm

2.

T was a teacher December 31, pensioner un Admittedly, th admitted in Pu paid a sum of no dispute wit the fact that th the Governme medical bills employer. Vid Education O Rs.2,04,692/- i

3.

T Rs.4,49,468/- instructions/po concerned, a su However, the

n the present appeal, the appel ment and decree dated February 0 ment dated January 19, 2024. he facts of the case in brief are r who retired from the service 2010 at the age of 58 years. nder the Haryana Governme he plaintiff-respondent contrac ushpanjli Hospital w.e.f. May 07 f Rs.6,65,000/- to the said hospit th regard to the amount paid by he said hospital was an empanel ent of Haryana. The plaintiff-re to the tune of Rs.6,65,000/- de the order dated December 06, Officer, Rewari-defendant No instead of Rs.6,65,000/-. he case of the appellants-defen could not be reimbursed as it olicy. Upon sanction being g um of Rs.2,04,692/- was disburs aforesaid sum of Rs.4,49,468/- llants have assailed the Trial 07, 2023 and Lower Appellate e that the plaintiff-respondent of the school concerned on The plaintiff-respondent is a ent Education Department. cted Covid-19 and remained 7, 2021 to June 04, 2021. He tal for his treatment. There is y the plaintiff-respondent and lled and approved hospital by espondent had submitted the - for reimbursement by his 2021, the District Elementary .3 sanctioned a sum of ndants is was that a sum of was against the Government granted from the authorities sed to the plaintiff-respondent. - could not be reimbursed. In

such circumst respondent ag contrary to the

4.

T learned counse the finding th amount of pac interest payabl realisation.

5.

T relevant part o "xxx It their de hospital existing

14.07.20 as the ca

Th

6.

It take treatment July 14, 2020. same is reprod "packag private h

tances, Civil Suit No.698 of gainst the defendants should e Government instructions. he learned Trial Court after el for the parties and perusing th at the plaintiff-respondent was ckage rate along with X-ray and le @ 9% per annum from the da he policy dated October 26, of the policy is reproduced hereun is clarified that the Governmen ependents may avail covid-19 t l/medical college, empanelled w (1340 fixe 020)/Limited cashless Medical F ase may be, and shall be charged This is applicable for the treatmen t was found that the Governmen t facilities as per the fixed pack The package rate was defined in duced hereunderbelow:- ge rate is a lump sum amount hospitals for package/procedure 2022 filed by the plaintiff-have been dismissed being hearing the submissions of he material on record, came to entitled to receive the entire d radio diagnosis charges with ate of filing the suit till actual 2020 was referred to. The nderbelow:- nt employees, pensioners and treatment facilities at private with State Government as per ed package rates dated Facilities/Empanelled policies, d accordingly.

nt of COVID-19 cases only." nt employees were entitled to kage rate vide a policy dated n 1(iii) of the said policy. The t charged by the empanelled e."

7.

Fu Trial Court. Th "the Pac treatmen hospital. treatmen fee, Pat charges, operatio anesthet hospitali assistant physioth post ope matching of 7 days

8.

Th levied separa ray/pharmacy, package rate a violation of the

9.

Th Vide the impu Rewari held tha empanelled ho plaintiff-respon treatment/day c

urthermore, the reliance was pla he same is reproduced hereunderb ckage Rate shall mean and inclu nt/day care/diagnostic procedure . This includes all charges nt/procedure including admission tient's diet, monitoring charge , investigation charges, operation on theatre charges, procedu tist's fee, cost of surgical disposal ization, consumables, gas ch t charges, cost of medicine herapy charges, nursing care ch erative stay in ICU, blood transf g, blood or component transfusio s after discharge from the hospita he Trial Court came to the findi ate charges for package/p the plaintiff was entitled to r along with X-ray and radio diagn e policies referred to hereinabove. he said judgment of the Trial Co ugned order dated January 19, at undisputedly the plaintiff-respo ospital from May 07, 2021 to Ju ndent paid a sum of Rs.6,65,000 t. The package rate included a care/diagnostic procedures. There aced on Clause 2(b)(ii) by the elow:- ude lump sum cost of inpatient es for which patient goes to pertaining to a particular n charges, visit fee/consultation es, preoperative investigation n charges, anaesthesia charges, ural charges/surgeon's fee, ls and all sundries used during harges, Surgical charges/OT used during hospitalization, arges for its services, routine sfusion (blood grouping, cross on) and medicines for a period al etc." ing that since the hospital had pathology/radio diagnosis/X-receive the entire amount of nosis. Therefore, there was no

ourt was challenged in appeal. 2024, learned District Judge, ondent remained admitted in an une 04, 2021. Admittedly, the 0/- and submitted his bills for a lump sum cost of patient efore, it came to the finding that

in view of the just, fair and re

10.

L submits that th a go bye beca Covid-19 treat awarding a sum admissible am amount that ha purview of t hereinbelow:- Description Covid-19 pack rent Pathology Radio Diagnos X-Ray Pharmacy char Total

11.

H and perused the

e aforesaid instructions/policy, de easonable. earned counsel appearing on b e executive instructions dated Oc ause the said instructions clearly t would be Rs.2000/- per day for tment. Therefore, the learned m that was more than the stipul mount has already been paid to as not been paid to the plaintiff-re the aforesaid policy. He relie Gross Amount kage room 4,20,000 (15000 X 28 days) 52,340 is 3500 rges 2,09,375 6,85,815 Heard the contentions of learned c e material on record. enial of Rs.4,49,468/- was not behalf of the appellants-State tober 26, 2020 cannot be given y stipulate that the amount of r ICU for a patient undergoing Courts below have erred in lated rate. He submits that the the plaintiff-respondent. The espondent did not fall under the es on the table reproduced Total admissible amount 56000 (2000 X 28 days) 21,135 3500 1,23,907 2,04,692 counsel for the appellants-State

12.

It rate under 1(iii by the empane 2(b)(ii), it bec "lump sum co package rate to room rate for getting treated room rate for I plaintiff-emplo disputed that Furthermore, it hospital that w plaintiff due to there was no s rates than it wo the State could

13.

In the policy date the room rate empanelled ho choice but to g and found a h entitlement wo

is clear that the policy dated July

i). The package rate is consisted o elled hospital for package and comes clear that the package ost to hospital etc." Therefore, o the plaintiff-employee. The Sta the Governments employees, pe for Covid-19 vide the instruction ICU was fixed at Rs.2000/- per d oyee paid the aforesaid sum of r he had undergone the treatme t is not disputed that the plaintif was empanelled. Significantly, hig o no fault of his own. As the hos space available at all, the hospita ould have charged in a normal sit not have restricted the room rate nitially, there was no stipulation w ed July 14, 2020. Thereafter, the to a much lower amount than w ospitals during the Covid-19 Pa go to the empanelled hospital. Ha hospital that may have charged t uld have been disputed for the ho y 14, 2020 referred to package of a lump sum amount charged procedure. Furthermore, from rate shall mean and include the State is liable to pay the ate later on went to restrict the ensioners and their dependants ns dated October 26, 2020. The day. It is not disputed that the rent as room rate neither it is nt for a period of 28 days. ff-employee got treated from a gher room rate was paid by the spitals were over-crowded and als charged significantly higher tuation. In such circumstances, to Rs.2000/- per day. with regard to the room rate in Government sought to restrict what was being charged by the andemic. The plaintiff had no ad the plaintiff shopped around the stipulated amount then his ospital not being an empanelled

one. The policy empanelled one

14.

Th having paid

15.

A passed by the T RSA No.1680 recourse agains due to the exo ground to decl that this judgm

16.

C

JANUARY 1 Prince

Whether speak Whether report

y of the State left the plaintiff with e and pay an exorbitant amount. his Court sees no fault on the pa a higher room rate to save t for the same from the State. Accordingly, this Court finds no Trial Court and also by the First A of 2024 is dismissed. The app st the empanelled hospitals if it fe orbitant room rate charged. Neve line reimbursement to a retired e ment will only be applicable to the Connected application(s), if any, sh

6, 2025

king/reasoned :

table :

h no choice but to approach the

art of the retired employee for his life and then claiming o infirmity in the judgments Appellate Court. Consequently, ellant/State may take separate feels that it has been prejudiced ertheless, that would not be a mployee. Needless to mention parties to the suit. hall also stand disposed of. (LAPITA BANERJI)

JUDGE

RSA-1680-2024(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1680-2024(O&M) DATE OF DECISION : JANUARY 16, 2025 STATEoOFoHARYANAoANDoOTHERS …APPELLANTS Versus RAJENDERoPARSHADo o …RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana for the appellants.