High Court Ends 19-Year Legal Battle, Upholds Full Reimbursement for Punjab Teacher's Heart Surgery
In a landmark judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has brought a close to a protracted 19-year legal dispute, ruling in favour of a government school teacher who sought full reimbursement for emergency heart surgery performed in 2002. The court dismissed the state government's appeal, upholding a lower court's order and delivering a strong message on the need for compassionate medical reimbursement policies.
The Case and the Crucial Legal Question
The central issue before Justice Sudeepti Sharma was whether medical bills for a government employee, referred to a private hospital in an emergency, could be restricted to the rates applicable at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). The court decisively ruled against such limitations, emphasising the circumstances of the referral.
Justice Sharma, delivering the judgment on January 28, 2026, dismissed the regular second appeal filed by the State of Punjab. The court affirmed a 2006 order from the District Judge in Mansa, which had originally allowed the claim of teacher Bhupinder Singh.
Details of the Medical Emergency and Claim
Bhupinder Singh, then a teacher at Government Elementary School in Phus Mandi, Mansa, underwent a critical coronary artery bypass surgery at the Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre in New Delhi in November 2002. This followed an angiography that revealed severe heart problems, leading to an official referral through government channels.
The treatment resulted in expenses totalling Rs 2,31,677, covering his hospital admission from November 18 to 30, 2002. The court noted that the Escorts Heart Institute was a recognised hospital for such procedures under a 1991 Punjab government directive, which also listed other institutions like Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, and Apollo Hospital, Madras.
Court's Rationale and Criticism of Delay
The judgment highlighted that the referral was made by the Punjab Health Systems Corporation due to the life-threatening nature of Singh's condition. It also referenced a 1995 government instruction waiving the requirement for prior medical board approval in such emergencies.
Justice Sharma strongly criticised the inordinate delay in resolving the reimbursement claim, stating, "Before parting, this court feels at pain to decide such kind of cases after almost 19 years, which should have been decided immediately since reimbursement is involved." The judge pointed out that Singh had been pursuing his rightful claim since 2002, a process that took nearly two decades to conclude.
Call for Liberal Government Policies
In a significant observation, the court urged the government to adopt a more humane and liberal approach in framing medical reimbursement policies. "The government should be liberal in framing the policies for medical treatment and reimbursement since a person in pain is not expected to choose the hospital and would prefer the nearest one only," the judgment noted.
This ruling underscores the principle that when a government employee is officially referred to a recognised private facility during a medical emergency, they are entitled to full reimbursement without being subjected to arbitrary rate restrictions. The decision is expected to set a precedent for similar cases involving medical claims of government staff in critical situations.
