Ravinder Gupta vs Director, Health Services, Government Of Nct Of Delhi

$~42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: October 29 , 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010138162026
+ W.P.(C) 4563/2026
RAVINDER GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Prabh Shahai Kaur, Adv.
and Ms. Nupur Shukla &Mr.
Anirudh Gulati, Advs. through
V.C.
versus
DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES,
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
Counsel GNCTD with Mr.
Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks the
following reliefs:
“a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to
make payment of an amount Rs. 11,83,105.21/- to the
petitioner alongwith interest @ of 9% per annum from
2021 till actual date of payment.
b) Issue of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned letter
dated 21.7.2025 issued by the Respondent.
c) Pass such other or further orders, writ or direction as
fr. Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstance of the case.”
2. The Petitioner claims reimbursement of the medical bills
pertaining to hospitalization of his wife (i.e. his family member) in Sir
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
15:35:52

Ganga Ram Hospital. The Petitioner claims to be an accredited
journalist governed by Delhi Press Report & Medical Aid Rules, 1955
( ‘DPRMAR’ ).
3. It remains undisputed that accredited journalists and their
family members are entitled for medical reimbursement in terms of
Rule 7 of notification dated 15.11.2011, which reads as under:
“Rule-7: Medical Treatment in Emergencies : Notwithstanding the
provisions contained in Rule 3, the Press Reporters and the
member of their families, in case of emergencies, requiring
emergent/lifesaving treatment, necessitated due to circumstances
beyond the control of the beneficiary, will be entitled for such
emergent/lifesaving treatment from the Private Hospitals
recognized/empanelled by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, as admissible
to Group A officers of the Govt of NCT of Delhi in accordance
with the provisions and procedure contained in the DGEHS, as
amended from time to time, subject to the following conditions -
a) The treatment was obtained in a private
recognized/empanelled hospital under emergency and the patient
was admitted by others when the beneficiary was unconscious or
severely incapacitated and was hospitalized for prolonged period ,
b) The treatment was obtained in a private recognized/empanelled
hospital under emergency and was admitted for prolonged period
for treatment of head injury, coma, septicemia, multi-organ failure
etc.,
c) The treatment was obtained in a private recognized/empanelled
hospital under emergency for treatment of advanced malignancy,
and
d) The treatment was obtained in a private
recognized/empanelled hospital under emergency when there is
strike in Government hospitals "
By order and in the name of Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi.”
4. It is the petitioner’s case that his wife was suffering from an
infected pseudo-aneurysm of the right femoral artery and required
emergent treatment, which was undertaken at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
15:35:52

and subsequently at Sir Ganga Ram City Hospital. It is submitted that
she was admitted to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital on 04.08.2021, pursuant
to a referral by G.B. Pant Hospital, as the facility for vascular surgery
was not available there and was also not available at Lok Nayak
Hospital. It is further contended that the Government hospitals where
treatment could otherwise have been sought had been designated as
COVID-19 hospitals to deal with the pandemic.
5. Thus, in view of the unavailability of the requisite treatment in
Government hospitals, owning to the declaration of the government
hospitals as COVID hospitals, the petitioner was compelled to seek
emergency treatment at a private hospital and the circumstances;
therefore, fall within condition (d) of Rule 7 of the notification dated
15.11.2011, entitling him to reimbursement of the medical expenses
incurred.
6. However, by way of the letter dated 21.07.2025, the respondent
has refused reimbursement to the petitioner noting that the surgery of
the petitioner’s wife was not “ emergent in nature ” and hence, could
not have been granted any reimbursement.
7. Notably, the respondent has failed to file a counter affidavit,
and its right to file the same was closed by this Court vide order dated
04.08.2026.
8. It remains uncontroverted that the petitioner had initially
approached G.B. Pant Hospital, a Government hospital, where his
wife was examined and thereafter referred to a medical facility
equipped with vascular surgery facilities.
9. The petitioner has placed forth the emergency certificate dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
15:35:52

04.10.2021 issued by Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, which records that his
wife was admitted to the hospital on 04.08.2021, as she was advised
urgent admission and treatment and underwent debridement of an
infected wound in the right groin.
10. The emergency certificate issued by Sir Ganga Ram Hospital,
read with the referral made by G.B. Pant Hospital on account of the
non-availability of vascular surgery facilities, supports the petitioner's
contention that the treatment was necessitated by emergent
circumstances . The respondent has also failed to controvert the
emergency certificate issued by Sir Ganga Ram Hospital.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent has contended before
this Court that in order for the petitioner to claim reimbursement
under condition (d) of Rule 7 of the notification dated 15.11.2011,
there ought to have been a strike in the government hospital. It is
contended that merely because a government hospital had been
declared a COVID hospital, the same cannot be equated to there being
a strike in the said hospital.
12. Insofar as the said argument is concerned, the same does not
find favour with this court. From a patient-centric perspective, a
government hospital strike and a designated COVID status share a
functional similarity as both result in the sudden suspension of
standard outpatient and inpatient services , forcing the patient to look
elsewhere for medical treatment. While the reasons for a strike and a
COVID-19 declaration are completely different, the end result for the
petitioner was identical as his wife, non-covid patient, was turned
away from receiving emergency healthcare in a government hospital
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
15:35:52

during the relevant period and he was forced to avail facilities of a
private hospital.
13. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner
has made out a case for reimbursement of the medical expenses
incurred towards the treatment of his wife at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital
and Sir Ganga Ram City Hospital, as he was constrained to approach
the private hospital due to non-availability of treatment in
Government Hospital.
14. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned letter dated
21.07.2025 is set aside.
15. The respondent is directed to reimburse the petitioner the
balance medical expenses of Rs.11,83,105.21/- incurred towards the
treatment of his wife at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and Sir Ganga Ram
City Hospital, within a period of eight weeks from today.
16. The respondent is at liberty to recover the above amount from
Officer responsible for not filing the Counter Affidavit.
17. The petition is disposed in the above terms.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
OCTOBER 29, 2026
DU
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER
KAUR
Signing Date:02.11.2026
15:35:52