1. The petitioner herein has challenged the communication dated 05.04.1999 issued by the Director, Health Services, respondent no.2 herein, whereby, the claim of the petitioner of Rs.61,430/- was rejected and further to direct the respondent-authorities to consider his claim.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner herein was serving as a Fitter in respondent no.3-Mill and was covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act. Between 01.04.1997 and 09.05.1997 the petitioner suffered an attack of Hepatitis-B and was required to be admitted in an Hospital named, Irwin Hospital at Jamnagar. However, the petitioner was advised to take treatment at some other Hospital having advanced technology. Therefore, the petitioner was admitted to Navneet Memorial Hospital at Ahmedabad on 13.05.1997. Thereafter, the petitioner was referred to Dr. Armira Hospital, Mumbai for necessary further treatment on 24.05.1997. The petitioner took treatment at the aforesaid Hospital situated in Mumbai up to 13.06.1997 when he was discharged. On 03.01.1998 the petitioner submitted an application to the respondent-authority seeking the claim for insurance. However, by impugned communication dated 05.04.1999, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by respondent no.2-authority. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. It appears from the record that the claim of the petitioner was rejected mainly on the ground that the petitioner had not obtained prior approval of the competent authority before taking treatment at different Hospitals. The petitioner had not informed about his willingness to avail the insurance scheme at the very beginning. Further, the treatments undergone at Ahmedabad and Mumbai were in Private Hospitals, for which no prior approval was taken. No permission to take treatment outside the State of Gujarat at Mumbai had been taken by the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the respondent-authority rejected the claim of the petitioner since it did not fulfill the criteria as provided under the provisions of the said Act. Considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the respondent-authority was completely justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner since no prior approval was taken. Hence, I find no reasons to entertain this petition.
4. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*