HC Slams Haryana for 12-Year Delay, Orders Full Rs 4.2 Lakh Medical Bill Reimbursement
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has delivered a landmark judgment, directing the State of Haryana to fully reimburse a government employee's medical expenses of Rs 4,20,766 incurred for his wife's emergency surgery. The court strongly criticized the state's "callous and indifferent" approach that led to a 12-year delay in processing the claim, calling the partial denial "wholly arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 21" of the Constitution.
Emergency Surgery and Reimbursement Denial
Justice Sandeep Moudgil ruled on a writ petition filed by Suresh Kumar, a government employee whose wife Poonam underwent emergency surgery at Indraprastha Apollo Hospital in Delhi in August 2014. The surgery involved removal of uterus and gallbladder along with hernia operation, performed during odd hours when the patient was in serious condition.
The state had sanctioned only Rs 43,005 out of the total claim of Rs 4,63,770, arguing that reimbursement could only be at PGIMER/AIIMS rates since Apollo Hospital was not empanelled at the time. The court completely rejected this argument, emphasizing that in life-threatening emergencies, "a patient or attendant has no real or meaningful choice to wait for admission or treatment at PGIMER."
Constitutional Right to Health and Medical Reimbursement
Justice Moudgil's judgment firmly established that the right to medical reimbursement is fundamentally rooted in the constitutional right to life under Article 21. Quoting Supreme Court precedents, the bench observed: "It is now settled law that right to health is integral to right to life. Government has constitutional obligation to provide health facilities."
The court relied on several landmark Supreme Court rulings:
- State of Punjab v Mohinder Singh Chawla (1997): Established right to health as integral to right to life
- Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v State of West Bengal (1996): Emphasized preservation of human life as paramount importance
- Shiva Kant Jha v Union of India (2018): Stated medical claims cannot be denied merely because hospital isn't in government order
Court's Strong Criticism of State's Approach
The judgment contained scathing remarks about the state's handling of the case. Justice Moudgil noted that despite submission of all required documents including emergency certificates, the petitioner had been pursuing the matter since 2014. The court described this prolonged delay as "a dereliction of the statutory and constitutional duty of the State."
"The petitioner has suffered undue and prolonged delay of several years... solely on account of the callous and indifferent approach of the authorities," the judgment stated, highlighting how such bureaucratic delays defeat the very purpose of medical reimbursement policies.
Final Order and Implications
The court ordered Haryana to pay the balance amount of Rs 4,20,766 along with 6% interest from the date it fell due till actual realization. The payment must be made within four weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order.
This judgment sets a significant precedent for medical reimbursement cases, particularly those involving emergency treatments in non-empanelled hospitals. The court emphasized that "the real test must be the factum of treatment" rather than technicalities about hospital empanelment, especially when human life is at stake.
The ruling reinforces the constitutional obligation of welfare states to provide adequate medical facilities and ensures that government employees aren't penalized for circumstances beyond their control during medical emergencies.
