Dat Gurcharan Si ran Singh v. Pepsu Road T Road Transport Corporation Patiala an iala and another
Case Details
CWP-16539 539-2016 1 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGA DIGARH NJAB AND HARYANA 206 CWP-16539-2016(O&M) CW , 2025 Date of Decision: August 25, 2025 Dat Gurcharan Si ran Singh .....Petitioner SUS VERSUS Pepsu Road T Road Transport Corporation Patiala an iala and another ... Responden ondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Ms. Anamika Sheoran, Advocate ocate vocate for Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harsh Chopra, Advocate for ate for the respondents. **** HARPREET REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition has bee 27 of as been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constituti nstitution of India with a prayer for issu or for issuance of an appropriate writ or order in the n the nature of mandamus, directing the ent of ng the respondents to make payment of the medical r dical reimbursement bills submitted by ashing tted by the petitioner and for quashing the action of ion of the respondents whereby paym n the y payment has been declined on the ground that b that bills in respect of outdoor treatme not to reatment of chronic diseases are not to be reimbursed bursed and further for quashing the d s dated the decision of the respondents dated 1.2.2010(Ann 0(Annexure P-13), whereby medical re stricted ical reimbursement has been restricted only to two di two diseases and not to other chronic ai onic ailments. 2. Learned counsel for the petition at the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner reti er retired from the services of Pepsu ion as Pepsu Road Transport Corporation as Head Blacksm lacksmith in the year 2007. Further, h heart ther, he is suffering from chronic heart disease, as is , as is perceptible from certificate da 1). ate dated 23.01.2009 (Annexure P-1). PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.28 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-16539 539-2016 2 Further, the , the petitioner had also been issu ement issued the medical reimbursement certificate eve ate every time he purchased the medic r also medicine (Annexure P-2). Earlier also petitioner rece er received treatment from a hospital w spital, pital which is non-government hospital, however, for r, for which, he was granted ex-post f irector post facto sanction from the Director Health and F and Family Welfare Punjab for a sum 3). a sum of Rs.5148/- (Annexure P-3). Further, the w , the wife of the petitioner is also suff isease so suffering from chronic heart disease and is totally otally dependent upon the petitioner. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petition e had etitioner further submitted that he had submitted the ted the medical bills for reimburseme ever, rsement in a proper format, however, the stands de nds declined on the ground that paym is not payment for outdoor treatment is not reimbursable rsable. Further, it is submitted that y the d that the claim submitted by the petitioner for ner for reimbursement is required to urjit ed to be approved in terms of Surjit Singh vs. Sta s. State of Punjab and others(1996) on the 996) 2 SCC 336 and further on the basis of Har Harbhajan Kaur 2006(4) SCT 47 edical T 476. The denial of the medical reimburseme rsement to the petitioner would be vio 16 of be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constituti nstitution of India. 4. On the other hand, learned coun poses d counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer ma yer made by the counsel for petitione ase of titioner on the ground that the case of the petitioner itioner was not covered under the poli ion of he policy at the time of submission of the claim. F Further the Hon’ble Supreme Co rsus me Court in State of Punjab Versus Ram Ludhay dhaya Bagga and others, 1998(4) of the (4) SCC 117 held that right of the State to ch to change its policy from time nging time to time under the changing circumstance stances cannot be questioned and the s State d the scope of judicial review in State matters is ver s is very narrow. PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.28 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-16539 539-2016 3 5. I have heard learned counsel f ed the nsel for the parties and perused the record with th with their able assistance. 6. The claim for medical reimburse issed bursement ought not to be dismissed merely becau because the claimant underwent trea ed. In nt treatment in a non-empanelled. In such cases, t ases, the test of essentiality and emer which d emergency comes into play, which dictates that s that if the medical procedure was un in an was undergone by the claimant in an emergency, o ncy, on the advice of a doctor based
Decision
order based on his medical record, in order to save his li his life, the reimbursement for the sa nly is the same must be made. Not only is the preservat servation of human life instinctive, bu rticle ive, but it also forms a part of Article 21 of the Co he Constitution of India, and theref in the therefore, it shall always retain the highest priori t priority. 7. Moreover, the State bears a ears an obligation e to ensure the the availability o ility of timely medical care to those in xpect ose in need. As such, it cannot expect the citizens t izens to refrain from availing timely on of imely care, merely for the reason of non-empanel panelment of the hospital. Such cond e does conduct on the part of the State does not satisfy th isfy the criteria of fairness and reasona ounts easonableness and therefore, amounts to a violatio iolation of the fundamental rights e of the ghts enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution tution of India. Reliance in this regard ments regard can be placed on the judgments rendered by ed by a two Judge bench of the Ho urjit he Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surjit Singh vs. Sta . State of Punjab and others(1996) aking 996) 2 SCC 336, whereby, speaking through Justi h Justice M.M. Punchhi, the following owing was opined: “8. Th . The policy, providing recognitio eart nition for treatment of open heart surger rgery in the Escorts, specifically cam sion came to be examined by a Division Bench nch of the Punjab and Haryana h in ana High Court at Chandigarh in C.W.P W.P. No. 13493 of 1992 titled as Sa njab Sadhu R. Pall v. State of Punjab throug rough Secretary, Health and Fa ivil Family Welfare Punjab, Civil PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.28 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-16539 539-2016 4 Secreta cretariat, Chandigarh and others, o 1994(1) SCT 552 552 (P&H) &H). decided on 6.10.1993, where writ herein the claim of the then writ petitio titioner to medical reimbursement w r to ent was accepted when in order to save h ve his life he had got himself operat the erated upon in the Escorts, and the plea of ea of the State that he could be paid IMS paid rates as prevalent in the AIIMS was re s rejected. Special Leave Petition t the tion No. 22024 of 1995 against the said d id decision was dismissed by this this Court on 2.2.1994. The othe ther judgme dgments of the High Court following all's wing the decision in Sadhu R. Pall's case ar se are : (1) C.W.P. No. 18562 of 1992 K.L. 992 decided on 10.5.95 titled K.L. Kohli v. State of Punjab and oth others, 1995(4) SCT 280 (P&H); (2) C.W.P. No. 260 of 1995, de Ravi 5, decided on 30.5.1995 titled Ravi Mohan Duggal v. State of Punja unjab and others (DB) (3) C.W.P. No. 5669 of 199 1994 decided on 4.9.94 itled titled Prem Singh Gill v. State of Punj Punjab and others; (4) 1995(4) SCT 816 (P&H) : port ) : 1995 (III) Punjab Law Report 529 titled Tarlok Chander v. Sta . State of Punjab etc. (SB); and (5) 1996(2) SCT 148 (P&H) : 1 rter ) : 1995 (III), Punjab Law Reporter 682 titled Mrs. Surya Pandit v. S SB) t v. State of Punjab and others (SB) xxx xxx xxx xxx 10. It i . It is otherwise important to bear i n of ar in mind that self preservation of one's l e's life is the necessary concomitant d in itant of the right to life enshrined in Article ticle 21 of the Constitution of India red, dia , fundamental in nature, sacred, precio ecious and inviolable. The importan nd rtance and validity of the duty and right t ht to self-preservation has a specie e in ecies in the right of self defence in crimin iminal law… 11. Th . The appellant therefore had th self d the right to take steps in self preser eservation. He did not have to stan ical stand in queue before the Medical Board, ard, the manning and assembling o s its g of which, bare-facedly, makes its meetin eetings difficult to happen. The appe tand appellant also did not have to stand in queu queue in the Government hospital of here tal of AIIMS and could go elsewhere PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.28 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-16539 539-2016 5 to an an alternate hospital as per poli has policy. When the State itself has brough ought the Escorts on the recognised tend ised list, it is futile for it to contend that th at the appellant could in no event h his nt have gone to the Escorts and his claim aim cannot on that basis be allowe k to lowed, on suppositions. We think to the con contrary…” 8. In the matter at hand, the petitio which petitioner underwent treatment, which was not esse ot essential in that moment or a ma non- a matter of emergency, from non empanelled h elled hospital. The medical record a t such cord also does not reflect that such treatment wa nt was necessary to save the life of th e test e of the petitioner. Therefore, the test of essentiality iality and emergency does not stand stand satisfied. 9. Accordingly, the present petit o the t petition is dismissed, so also the pending misc g miscellaneous application(s), if any if any. RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE August 25, 2 P.C , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.08.28 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document