JUSTICE AJITBHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Punjab in First Appeal No. 856/2013 whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal preferred against the order of the District Forum Ludhiana and directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant medical reimbursement to the tune of Rs.56,477/- besides compensation to the tune of Rs.15,000/-. 2. Briefly put, the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that petitioner being a retired railway employee is the beneficiary of Liberalized Health Scheme of Railway, for which he was issued medical card no.019942 dated 14.10.203. Joginder Kaur, wife of the complainant is shown as dependent and, therefore, entitled to the benefit under the Liberalized Health Scheme of the railway. It is the case of the complainant that Joginder Kaur had to be rushed to Christian Medical College in emergency condition on 22.03.2009 with history of pain in lumbar region, fever and vomiting for six days. Joginder Kaur was admitted in CMC Ludhiana and treated for right pyelonephritis + right adrenal adenoma – right sacral ala asteocondroma + diabetes mellitus type-II during the period 22.03.2009 to 01.04.2009. The complainant submitted his reimbursement claim of Rs.56,477/- spent on treatment of his wife. The claim, however, was rejected vide letter dated 10.07.2009 which reads as under: “No.139-Med/Reimb/CMS/FZR Divisional Hospital Dated : 10.07.09 Firozpur Cantt Swarn Singh Retd. Office Supdt./IUC/Statical Branch Sub: Medical Reimbursement Claim of Smt. Joginder Kaur w/o Swarn Singh “Normally medical reimbursement claim is being sanctioned only when a Railway employee or retired employee has to avail treatment in a Private hospital/recognized hospital & Civil hospital under such emergency that there was no scope for coming to Rly hospital. For example a roadside traffic accident, heart attack etc. As in discharge summary Pt. had pain in Rt. Lumber pain for last 5-6 days. No ICU admission was done. As Railway Board No. no A/C emergency was establish vide No.2005/H/6-4/Policy-II dated 311.01.07. In view of the above your reimbursement claim has been regretted. As per Bd’s policy No. 2005/H/6-4/Policy-II dated 311.01.07. Sd/- Chief Medical Supdt. Northern Railway Firozpur Cantt”. 3. Being aggrieved of the repudiation of the reimbursement claim, the respondent complainant filed consumer complaint in District Forum Ludhiana. 4. Upon notice, the petitioner opposite party filed a written reply justifying the rejection of insurance claim. It was pleaded that as per Railway policy no. 2005/H/6-4/Policy-II dated 31.01.2007, the emergency in case of Joginder Kaur for taking treatment at CMC Hospital Ludhiana without previous approval from the concerned authority was not established. 5. The District Forum Ludhiana on appreciation of evidence, did not find merit in the complaint. Consequently, the consumer complaint was dismissed. 6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the State Commission Punjab in appeal. The State Commission vide impugned order allowed the appeal and passed the above noted directions against the petitioner opposite party. Aggrieved of the order of the State Commission, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. 7. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. It is not disputed that respondent complainant and his wife are the beneficiaries of Liberalized Health Scheme of the opposite party. It is also not in dispute that wife of the complainant was admitted and treated at CMC Hospital Ludhiana from 22.03.2009 till 01.04.2009 and the complainant incurred expenses of Rs.56,477/- on the treatment of his wife. 8. The reimbursement claim of the complainant was rejected vide letter dated 10.07.2009 which reads as under: “No.139-Med/Reimb/CMS/FZR Divisional Hospital Dated : 10.07.09 Firozpur Cantt Swarn Singh Retd. Office Supdt./IUC/Statical Branch Sub: Medical Reimbursement Claim of Smt. Joginder Kaur w/o Swarn Singh “Normally medical reimbursement claim is being sanctioned only when a Railway employee or retired employee has to avail treatment in a Private hospital/recognized hospital & Civil hospital under such emergency that there was no scope for coming to Rly hospital. For example a roadside traffic accident, heart attack etc. As in discharge summary Pt. had pain in Rt. Lumber pain for last 5-6 days. No ICU admission was done. As Railway Board No. no A/C emergency was establish vide No.2005/H/6-4/Policy-II dated 311.01.07. In view of the above your reimbursement claim has been regretted. As per Bd’s policy No. 2005/H/6-4/Policy-II dated 311.01.07. Sd/- Chief Medical Supdt. Northern Railway Firozpur Cantt”. 9. On reading of the above, it is clear that claim of the complainant was rejected on the ground that as per the policy of Railway Board, the railway employees / retired employees / dependents are ordinarily required to get treatment at Railway hospital and normally the medical reimbursement claim pertaining to treatment undertaken at private hospital/ recognized hospital was to be reimbursed only if such a treatment was taken in emergency circumstances. Thus, the only question which requires determination is whether the complainant had taken his wife for treatment to CMC Hospital in emergency situation? 10. The State Commission has comprehensively dealt with the aforesaid issue in the impugned order and observed that as per the record, wife of the complainant was suffering from fever and vomiting for six days. Therefore, she was rushed to the casualty of CMC hospital. The State Commission has taken a view that continuous fever and vomiting for six days would have been detrimental to the life of the patient who remained in hospital for almost 10 days. Therefore, it was a case of emergency and as such, the rejection of reimbursement claim by the opposite party was not justified. We do not find any infirmity in the above reasoning. 11. In view of the above, revision petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs. | 
