Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Verma, Advocate and learned counsel for the respondent/caveator Mr. Updip Singh, Advocate are present. The District Forum after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, took the view that the claim of the complainant may be paid according to the Railway Board entitlement. The relevant extract of the order of the District Forum is reproduced below: “In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Opposite Party is directed to make the payment of claim amount of the complainant as per the entitlement of the Railway Board of the Opposite Party. Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of causing him mental tension and harassment besides Rs.1000/- as costs of litigation. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order; failing which, the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Forum. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.” On appeal, the State Commission, through a detailed, reasoned order, affirmed the order of the District Forum. The relevant extract of the order of the State Commission is reproduced below: “11. When the claim of the complainant was received, a Committee was constituted and it was observed by the Committee in its report Ex. OP-3 that the patient was suffering from Osteoarthritis. Knee is not an emergency condition and total knee replacement is not an emergency surgery. No doubt that in case for getting treatment from the private hospital as per the instructions referred above, the complainant should have first report to the Railway Medical Officer then Medical Officer can refer to his Railway Hospital where such a treatment is available. In case such a surgery is not available to Railway Hospital then she can referred to Government Hospital where such a facility is there or to any private hospital but the complainant did not follow that procedure and directly get it the treatment of his wife from the private hospital. In case the situation is so whether the entire claim of the complainant can be rejected, the answer certainly be is in ‘negative’. Take the case if the treatment would have been taken in any Railway Hospital then what would be charges payable to the complainant, only those charges can be paid and in case any excess payment paid by the complainant to the private hospital then he will not entitled to that extra payment. Keeping in view that situation, the District Forum has already passed the order directing the OP to make the payment to the complainant as per the entitlement of the Railway Board. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the District Forum is justified. 12. The counsel for the appellant/OP could not point out any other illegality in the order passed by the District Forum. 13. No other point was argued. 14. Sequel to the above, we do not find any merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed in limine.” I am also inclined to agree with the reasoning adopted by both the fora below. Without going into the aspect of what would constitute a medical emergency, it may be sufficient to note that definition thereof would differ from individual to individual, and case to case. Be that as it may, there cannot be any objection to refund the amount which would have been due to the petitioner, had he taken treatment in a facility duly approved or provided by the Railways. This is all that the lower fora have allowed and correctly so, in my opinion. In view of above, this Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. | 
