Devan Ramachandran, J.

1. The appellants assert that the final order of the learned Central Administrate Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench “(Tribunal)” is incorrect and based solely on surmises because, the disease and treatment suffered and endured by the wife of the respondent/original applicant, was not serious enough to force her to take treatment in a Non-Empanelled Hospital, to thus suffer a larger bill than authorised under the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS).

2. Sri.T.C.Krishna – learned Senior Panel Counsel for the appellants, argued that, going by the records available and the pleadings of the respondent/applicant, the patient’s disease was not grave enough to warrant an emergency treatment or surgery; and consequently, that the reliance placed by the learned Tribunal on Shiva Kant Jha v. Union of India ((2018) 16 SCC 187), is misplaced. He explained that, as per the treatment documents and the admitted pleadings, the patient initially was treated in one hospital, to be taken to another as reflected in Annexure A8; and that, she then took a second opinion in a third hospital, in which, the surgery was conducted, as certified in Annexure A9. He maintained that the surgery can hence only be seen to be an elective one, and not performed in an emergency; and consequently, that the benefit of declarations in Shiva Kant Jha (supra) would not inure to the respondent/original appellant.

3. In refutation, the learned counsel for the respondent – Sri.Sudeep Aravind, pointed out that, even as per the documents relied upon by Sri.T.C.Krishna - namely Annexures A8 and A9 - it would stand to no doubt that his client's wife was in a very precarious medical condition, requiring urgent and incisive action, including a surgery, which was then done on 28.01.2021. He showed us, referring to Annexure A8, that, on 13.01.2021, his client's wife, namely the patient, was admitted in “V.G.Saraf Memorial Hospital Pvt. Ltd.”, which was also a Non-Empanelled hospital under the CGHS, with a complaint of severe bleeding; and that the doctors suspected malignancy of the rectum, for which a biopsy was taken. He says that, however, within a short period of 9 days, the patient's condition deteriorated to such extent, that she had to be admitted to the “Aster Medcity Hospital” in Kochi - which is one again empanelled under the CGHS - in a very serious condition, thus being subjected to urgent surgery of coloanal anastomosis on 28.01.2021, as ineluctable from Annexure A9 certificate, dated 03.02.2021, issued by the said hospital.

4. Irrefutably – as is admitted – that, if the patient had had to undergo emergency surgery and did not obtain the time to go in search of a hospital empanelled with the CGHS, the declarations in Shiva Kant Jha (supra) would come to apply in all its fours.

5. In the afore precedent, the Hon'ble Court has declared, with unmistakable emphasis, that the “ultimate decision as to how a patient should be treated vests only with the Doctor, who is well versed and expert both on academic qualifications and experience gained”; further that: “very little scope is left to the patient or his relative to decide as to the manner in which the ailment should be treated”; and hence that “taking treatment in Speciality Hospital by itself would not deprive a person to claim reimbursement solely on the ground that the said Hospital is not included in the Government Order.” The judgment is important for the further declarations, namely that “the real test in such cases must be the factum of treatment” and to decide “whether the patient or the claimant had actually taken treatment as supported by the records duly certified by Doctors/Hospitals in charge”. It then concludes clarifying that the right to medical claim cannot be denied solely because the hospital is not an empanelled one.

6. In fact, the spirit of the afore judgment is available in Annexure A27, which is the Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India on 22.05.2018, which specifies that “treatment obtained in a private unrecognised hospital under emergency for treatment of advanced malignancy” would not disentitle a patient or applicant from the benefits under the CGHS.

7. Applying the afore into the facts of this case, we obtain no reason to disbelieve the respondent, that his wife was suffering gravely even when she had been admitted to “V.G.Saraf Memorial Hospital” on 13.01.2021 because, its certificate, namely Annexure A8, records that she was having bleeding. The suspicion at that time was malignancy in the rectum; and a biopsy had also been taken. The patient was discharged from the said hospital on 14.01.2021; however, to be taken to another hospital, namely the “Aster Medcity”, on 27.01.2021, to be then subjected to an emergency life saving surgery on that day, as apodictic from the certification contained in Annexure A9 dated 03.02.2021.

8. Annexure A9 is incontrovertible in its tenor that the surgery was done on the patient on an emergency basis; and that she underwent “Laparoscopic ultra low anterior resection with coloanal anastomosis and covering stoma under GA on 28.01.2021” (sic).

9. In such factual scenario, we cannot find the contentions of Sri.T.C.Krishna to be deserving approval in any manner, particularly that the surgery conducted on the patient was an “elective” one. We have nothing before us to disbelieve Annexure A9, which is the certificate issued by “Aster Medcity”, especially when it is not under challenge.

In the afore circumstances, we obtain no reason to intervene; and consequently, dismiss this petition.