Neki Ram v. State Of Haryana & ORS.

CWP No. 6366 OF 2015 --1--

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6366 OF 2015 DECIDED ON: JANUARY 25, 2018 NEKI RAM .....PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASPAL SINGH

Present:

Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. C.S. Bakshi, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ***** JASPAL SINGH, J.

Through instant petition preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has sought issuance of a writ especially in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reimburse medical charges/bills amounting to Rs.3,13,486/- submitted to the respondents. 2.

During the course of arguments, it has emerged that medical bills of the petitioner were under active consideration of the respondents at the time of filing written reply to the petition in the month of September 2016, which have since been disposed of vide order dated 27.05.2016 and conveyed to the petitioner and others vide endorsement No.P-1-2016/39150-56 dated 31.05.2016 whereby a sum of Rs.1,85,000/- has been sanctioned and disbursed Sonika 2018.02.01 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No. 6366 OF 2015 --2-- to the petitioner. Similarly, vide another order dated 20.01.2016, conveyed to the petitioner vide endorsement No.P-1-2016/3590-97, dated 28.01.2016, a sum of Rs.42,280/- has been sanctioned in view of Govt. Hospital rates in accordance with Haryana Govt. (Health Department) letter No.2/8/88/IHB-III, dated 06.05.2005.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is fully satisfied with the sanction of the aforesaid amount as the aforesaid Somvit Healthcare was an unapproved hospital. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised certain objections with regard to the deduction of the amount of the bills submitted for reimbursement, which pertains to Artemis Hospital, Gurgaon, which is an approved hospital.

4.

However, at this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the sanction orders have been passed, the instant petition has rendered infructuous and he is required to challenge order dated 27.05.2016, conveyed to the petitioner vide endorsement No.P-1-2016/39150-56, dated 31.05.2016 and seeks permission for filing a fresh writ petition in this regard. 5.

In the light of what has been discussed above, the instant petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner that if he is aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 31.05.2016, he can have recourse to the remedies available under law including filing of writ petition.

JANUARY 25, 2018 (JASPAL SINGH) sonika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes/No Sonika 2018.02.01 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh