Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MOHINDER SINGH CHAWLA ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/12/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.16980-81 OF 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.12945 and 18828 of 1996)
O R D E R
In CA No.16979/96 @ SLP (C) No.12472/96:
Leave granted
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment
and order of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High
Court, made on August 8, 1996 in CWP No.15942/95.
The respondent had heart ailment which required
replacement of two valves in the heart. Since the facility
of the treatment was not available in the State Hospitals of
Punjab, permission was given by the Director, with the
approval of the Medical Board, to get the treatment outside
the State. The respondent was sent for and had treatment in
the AIIMS at New Delhi. The respondent submitted this
medical bill on September 21, 1994 for reimbursement. While
granting reimbursement for the actual expenses incurred in
the sum of Rs.1,29,000/-, the appellants rejected his bill
for room rent paid to the hospital as inadmissible. The
respondent filed writ petition stating that when he had
undergone the treatment in the hospital as an inpatient, the
payment of the room rent is an integral part of the expenses
for treatment and, therefore, he is entitled to the
reimbursement of the room rent paid. The Division Bench
directed payment of the said amount. Thus, this appeal by
special leave.
It is contended for the appellants-State that the
Government have taken decision, as a policy in the
Resolution dated January 25, 1991 made in Letter
No.7/7/85/5HBV/2498, that the reimbursement of expenses on
account of diet, stay of attendant and stay of patient in
hotel/hospital will not be allowed. Permission given was
subject to the above resolution and, therefore, the High
Court was not right in directing the Government to bear the
expenses for the stay in the hotel/hospital contrary to para
(vii) of the Resolution of the Government. We find no force
in the contention. It is an admitted position that when
specialised treatment was not available in the Hospitals
maintained by the State of Punjab. Permission and approval
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
having been given by the Medical Board to the respondent to
have the treatment in the approved hospitals and having
referred him to the AIIMS for specialised treatment where he
was admitted, necessarily, the expenses incurred towards
room rent for stay in the hospital as an inpatient are an
integral part of the expenses incurred for the said
treatment. Take, for instance, a case where an inpatient
facility is not available in a specialised hospital and the
patient has to stay in a hotel while undergoing the
treatment, during the required period, as certified by the
doctor, necessarily, the expenses incurred would be integral
part of the expenditure incurred towards treatment. It is
now settled law that right to health is an integral to right
to life. Government has constitutional obligation to provide
the health facilities. If the Government servant has
suffered an ailment which requires treatment at a
specialised approved hospital and on reference whereat the
Government servant had undergone such treatment therein, it
is but the duty of the State to bear the expenditure
incurred by the Government servant. Expenditure, thus,
incurred requires to be reimbursed by the State to the
employee. The High Court was, therefore, right in giving
direction t reimburse the expenses incurred towards room
rent by the respondent during his stay in the hospital as an
inpatient.
The learned counsel then contends that the State would
be saddled with needless heavy burden, while other general
patients would not be able to get the similar treatment. We
appreciate the stand taken that greater allocation requires
to be made to the general patients but unfortunately due
attention for proper maintenance and treatment in Government
Hospitals is not being given and mismanagement is not being
prevented. Having had the constitutional obligation to bear
the expenses for the Government servant while in service or
after retirement from service, as per the policy of the
Government, the government is required to fulfill the
constitutional obligation. Necessarily, the State has to
bear the expenses incurred in that behalf.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
IN CA @ SLP (C) NO.12945/96 - State of Punjab & Ors. v.
Waryam Singh:
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel on both sides.
While the respondent was a Government servant, he had
developed sudden coronory ailment. After required
angiography and other reports of tripple vessets diseaase
was diagnosed in CMC Hospital, Ludhianaa and he was
recommended by the said hospital to go over or Escorts
Hearts Institute, New Delhi for urgent treatment. On its
basis, the respondent had the treatment. The Medical Board
granted by its proceedings dated January 12, 1969, ex-post
facto sanction for treatment with one attendant. The
appellant had granted reimbursement of a sum of
Rs.1,03,267/- less the rent paid for the room in the
hospital for the period of stay. It is the Government’s
stand that the reimbursement could be allowed as per rates
charged by All India Institute of Medical Sciences.
Accordingly, a sum of Rs.20,000/- paid as rent was deducted.
When the respondent filed the writ petition, the High Court,
by judgment dated April 12, 1996 in CWP No.16570/95, the
Division bench allowed the writ petition. Thus, this appeal
by special leave.
It is contended for the State that though the
Government had granted ex-post facto sanction through the
Medical Board and permitted the patient to undergo treatment
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
outside the State with the policy, for reimbursement of
medical expenses incurred and the medical treatment taken in
the Hospital to the Government servant/pensioners or
dependents, as per rules, the Government has imposed a
condition to pay room rent at the rates charged by the AIIMS
for stay in the hospital. the reimbursement will be given at
those rates. The Government, therefore, is not obliged to
pay the actual expenses incurred by the patient while taking
the treatment as inpatient in the hospital, for rent.
We are unable to agree with the stand taken by the
Government. It is seen that the Government had decided in
the proceedings dated October 8, 1991 to reimburse the
medical expenditure incurred by the Punjab Government
employees/pensioners and dependents on treatment taken
abroad in private hospital. It is stated in paragraphs 2 and
3 that the Government has prepared a list of those diseases
for which the specialised treatment is not available in
Punjab Government Hospitals but it is available in certain
identified private hospitals, both within the outside the
States. It was, therefore, decided to recognise these
hospitals for treatment of the diseases mentioned against
their names in the enclosed list for the Punjab Government
employees/pensioners and their dependents, The terms and
conditions contained in the letter under reference would
remain applicable. The Government can, however, revise the
list in future. The name of the disease for which the
treatment is not available in Punjab Government hospitals is
shown as Open Heart Surgery and the name of the private
hospital is shown as Escorts Heart Institute, New Delhi as
one of the approved hospital/institution. Thus, for open
heart surgery or heart disease the Escort Heart Institute is
authorised and recognised institution by the Government of
Punjab. Consequently, when the patient was admitted and had
taken the treatment in the hospital and had incurred the
expenditure towards room charges, inevitably the
consequential rent paid for the room during his stay in
integral part of his expenditure incurred for the treatment.
Consequently the Government is required to reimburse the
expenditure incurred for the period during which the patient
stayed in the approved hospital for treatment. It is
incongruous that while the patient is admitted to undergo
treatment and he is refused the reimbursement of the actual
expenditure incurred towards room rent and is given the
expenditure of the room rent chargeable in another institute
whereat he had not actually undergone treatment. Under these
circumstances, the contention of the State Government is
obviously untenable and incongruous. We hold that the High
Court was right in giving the direction for reimbursement of
a sum of Rs.20,000/- incurred by the respondent towards the
room rent for his stay while undergoing treatment in Escorts
Heart Institute, New Delhi.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly, No costs.
In CA & SLP (C) No.18828/96:
Leave granted
Heard counsel for the parties,
The appeal is disposed of in terms of order passed in
CA No. 16980/96 @ SLP (C) No.12945/96.