Relief to government employee
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that patients cannot be compelled to wait for admission to empanelled hospitals in emergency and life-threatening situations. Granting relief to a government employee, the court directed the Haryana government to reimburse the remaining medical expenses of Rs 4,20,766, along with 6 per cent interest, for his wife’s emergency surgery at a non-empanelled hospital.
Partial sanction termed illegal
The court criticised the State for approving only Rs 43,005 out of the total claim of Rs 4,63,770. It termed the decision arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, holding that medical reimbursement cannot be denied merely because treatment was taken at a non-empanelled private hospital.
Right to health under Article 21
Allowing the writ petition, Justice Sandeep Moudgil held that the right to medical reimbursement flows directly from the fundamental right to life under Article 21, which includes the right to health. The court observed that once genuine treatment is established, claims cannot be rejected on technical grounds.
Emergency treatment in 2014
The dispute arose in August 2014 when the petitioner’s wife, Smt. Poonam, was rushed in critical condition to Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi. She underwent an emergency hysterectomy, gallbladder removal and hernia repair. Medical records confirmed that the treatment was emergent, leaving no scope to shift her to a government-empanelled hospital or seek prior approval.
Delay and objections by authorities
After the surgery, the petitioner submitted a reimbursement claim of Rs 4.63 lakh, which was repeatedly objected to on the grounds that the hospital was not empanelled and that an emergency certificate was missing. Though the certificate was later issued and all documents resubmitted, the claim remained pending for several years.
State’s defence rejected
The State argued that reimbursement in such cases should be restricted to PGIMER or AIIMS rates as per policy. Rejecting this stand, the court held that in life-threatening situations, saving the patient’s life must take priority and procedural formalities cannot override urgent medical needs.
Reliance on Supreme Court rulings
The High Court relied on Supreme Court judgments, including State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla, Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal, and Shiva Kant Jha v. Union of India, reiterating that the right to health is part of the right to life and that genuine medical claims cannot be denied on technicalities.
Direction to pay balance with interest
Observing that the petitioner had suffered prolonged delay due to the callous approach of authorities, the court ordered the State to reimburse the balance amount of Rs 4,20,766 with 6 per cent interest from the date it became due, within four weeks from receipt of the order.
