October 08, 2025 Date Satyendra Ku dra Kumar Sinha (since deceased) thro d) through v. itioner
Case Details
CWP-20347 0347-2017(O&M) 1 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGA NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 222 CWP-20347-2017(O&M) CW , 2025 Date of Decision: October 08, 2025 Date Satyendra Ku dra Kumar Sinha (since deceased) thro d) through his legal heirs Punjab State State Power Corporation Limited and ed and another SUS VERSUS itioner .....Petitioner .....Responden ondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. B.R. Rana, Advocate for the for the petitioner. Mr. Haneesh Kumar Advocate and Mr. Devaki Anand Sullar, A ocate ocate for Mr. G.S. Sullar, Advocate llar, Advocate for the respondents. **** HARPREET REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition has bee of the as been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution tution of India with a prayer for issu ure of r issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari fo for quashing the impugned orde order dated 01.06.2017 (Annexure exure P-5) passed b assed by respondent No.2, whereby m im of reby medical reimbursement claim of petitioner has er has been declined. Further for issu ure of or issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to re im of to reimburse the medical claim of Rs.5,66,350.5 6,350.51 along with interest up to date o date as per Rules. 2.
Legal Reasoning
There is no dispute that the wife ndent he wife of petitioner was a dependent on petitioner titioner at the time of her treatme spital. eatment at the concerned hospital. Admittedly, edly, a total expenditure incurred r was rred on the wife of petitioner was Rs.7,66,350.5 6,350.51 out of which an amount of Rs anged t of Rs.2,00,000/- have been arranged by son of pe of petitioner from his employer in o of his er in order to preserve the life of his mother in an in an emergency situation. The aforem quired aforementioned amount was required to be depos deposited at the time of admission nt of ission in hospital. The amount of Rs.2,00,000/ 0,000/- which got deposited by the son ded in son9s employer, is not included in the claim of of Rs.5,66,350.51 submitted by th ection by the petitioner. As such, objection raised by resp by respondent-Corporation is too hype e used hyper-technical and cannot be used to deny the ad the admissible claim of the petitioner itioner. 8. The condition of the wife of th and it of the petitioner was serious and it was the case e case of emergency. It is not the ca at the the case of the respondents that the claim of the h f the husband of petitioner is not supp In ot supported by the hospital record. In such cases, t ases, the test of essentiality and emer which d emergency comes into play, which PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.03 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20347 0347-2017(O&M) 5 dictates that s that if the medical procedure was un in an was undergone by the claimant in an emergency, ncy, on the advice of a doctor b , the ctor based on medical record, the reimburseme rsement for the same must be made. ion of made. Not only is the preservation of human life life instinctive, but it also forms f the forms a part of Article 21 of the Constitution tution of India, and therefore, it sh ighest , it shall always retain the highest priority. 9. Moreover, the State bears a ears an obligation e to ensure the the availability o ility of timely medical care to those in ct ose in need. As such, it cannot expect the citizens to zens to refrain from availing timely ca art of ely care. Such conduct on the part of the State doe te does not satisfy the criteria of fa s and of fairness and reasonableness and therefore, am re, amounts to a violation of the fu ed in the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21 of 21 of the Constitution of India. Relia laced . Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgm judgments rendered by a two Judge preme Judge bench of the Hon9ble Supreme Court in Su Surjit Singh vs. State of Punj SCC Punjab and others(1996) 2 SCC 336,whereby ereby, speaking through Justice M.M e M.M. Punchhi, the following wa g 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 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 PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.03 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20347 0347-2017(O&M) 6 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 ion No. 22024 of 1995 against the said d id decision was dismissed by this ther this Court on 2.2.1994. The other 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 and 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 ng 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 o here tal of AIIMS and could go elsewhere 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 ha his nt have gone to the Escorts and his PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.03 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20347 0347-2017(O&M) 7 claim aim cannot on that basis be allowe k to lowed, on suppositions. We think to the con contrary&= 10. It is not a case that the claim o based laim of the petitioner was not based upon the med he medical record. Accordingly, the p . The , the present petition is allowed. The respondents a dents are directed to make payment of or the ent of medical reimbursement for the medical pro l procedure undergone by wife o ne of ife of petitioner to the tune of Rs.5,66,350/ 6,350/- along with 6% interest to be ca filing o be calculated from the date of filing the present w sent writ petition, within a period of of iod of three months from the date of receiving a ce ng a certified copy of this order. 11. Pending miscellaneous applicat stands plication(s), if any, shall also stands
Arguments
Learned counsel for the petition wife etitioner inter alia contends that wife of the petitio petitioner fell seriously ill on 15.08.2 time, 15.08.2015 and at that point of time, PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.03 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20347 0347-2017(O&M) 2 petitioner wa er was out of station, due to which s other hich son of petitioner got his mother admitted in R ed in Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute, Ro .2015. ute, Rohni, New Delhi on 16.08.2015. At the time time of admission of wife of petitio unt of petitioner in hospital, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/ 0,000/- was required to be deposited uch a osited as admission fees. In such a situation, son n, son of the petitioner who was em pany was employed in a private company sought help o help of his employer and the compan unt to ompany directly deposited amount to the tune of ne of Rs.2,00,000/- to the concern e the oncerned hospital to facilitate the admission. T ion. The wife of petitioner remaine w.e.f. emained admitted in hospital w.e.f. 16.08.2015 t 015 to 14.09.2015 and received t rcoma ived treatment for chondrosarcoma (Cancer). Th r). The petitioner incurred a total exp 51 on tal expenditure of Rs.7,66,350.51 on the treatment atment of his wife and out of this amo lready is amount, Rs.2,00,000/- was already deposited by ted by the employer of son of petit tioner f petitioner. As such, the petitioner submitted the ted the claim for the remaining amou letter amount of Rs.5,66,350.51 vide letter dated 01.10.2 1.10.2015. Petitioner has not only fur ut has ly furnished the medical bills but has also submitte bmitted the requisite certificate issue e vide e issued by the cancer institute vide Annexure P ure P-1(collectively). Thereafter, resp ection r, respondent No.2 raised an objection and sought cl ught clarification on the ground if the f wife if the claim for the treatment of wife of petitioner itioner has been taken by his son claim son how the petitioner can claim reimburseme rsement from the respondent-Corpora nse to orporation. Petitioner in response to the objection jection raised filed a detailed reply d aining eply dated 27.07.2016 by explaining each and eve nd every aspect and also clarified th ied that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/ ,000/- was availed b ed by son of the petitioner in order other order to preserve the life his mother who was in as in dire need of medical assista se of assistance and it was the case of PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.03 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20347 0347-2017(O&M) 3 emergency. ncy. Unfortunately the wife of petitio r only petitioner succumbed to cancer only after a month month from the date of discharge. He of the e. He further submits that wife of the petitioner wa er was residing with the petitioner an him. oner and totally dependent upon him. Learned coun d counsel further refers to written sta ndent- en statement filed by the respondent Corporation a ation and submits that claim of the pe the petitioner has been declined onl d only on the ground ground that wife of petitioner cannot b as she annot be considered dependant, as she fails to fall o fall under the definition of dep n the of dependent by relying upon the instructions ( tions (Annexure R-1). 3. Learned counsel appearing on ts has g on behalf of the respondents has filed the copy e copy of affidavit Sh. Salim Moham 4, ohammad along with Annexure R-4, which is orde is ordered to be taken on record. Regis same . Registry is directed to place the same at the approp ppropriate place. 4. Per contra, learned counsel f ration nsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that s that petitioner has taken the bene erage benefit of the Corporate Coverage Scheme from e from the private company through h ed to ugh his son and cannot be allowed to claim reimbu eimbursement and prays for dismissal missal of the present petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel f ed the nsel for the parties and perused the record with th with their able assistance. 6. It transpires that the claim of ed by im of the petitioner was rejected by relying upon upon the instructions dated 06.08.201 sal of 08.2014 (Annexure R-1). A perusal of the same wou e would indicate that Government of ctions ent of Punjab has issued instructions regarding ex extension of increasing of incom nts of income condition for dependents of PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.03 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20347 0347-2017(O&M) 4 family for m for medical reimbursement to emplo ers of employees/officers and pensioners of Punjab Gove Government, which may be read as un d as under:- 2&.. <Keeping in view the d tion he demand of different association and public intent in mind the G ting he Govt. has decided in the meeting of standing Committee, thereof, not reof, a member of family who is not an income tax payee, be treate e of eated as dependent for purpose of medical reimbursement but if ical t if such member has got medical reimbursed or claimed medica else, ical claim from somewhere else, then he will not be treated as de s dependent.=. 7.
Decision
ed of. disposed of. RAR) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE October 08 P.C er 08, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : Yes/No Yes/No PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.03 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document