Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 14
PETITIONER:
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RAM LUBHAYA BAGGA ETC. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/02/1998
BENCH:
S.B. MAJMUDAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO, A.P. MISRA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
MISRA, J.
Leave granted.
In these set of appeals arising out of Special leave
petitions, the common question which has come up for
consideration is the entitlement towards medical expenses of
the Punjab government employees and pensioners as per the
relevant rules and the Government policy. In pith and
substance, the scale at which their reimbursement is
admissible towards their medical expenses incurred in a
nongovernmental hospital. It is not a new phenomena, such
employees have been and are still raising such issue
repeatedly with the changing scenario, political, social and
financial the policy of reimbursement is not static. In the
recent past in spate of petitions dealing with the 1991
policy of the State Government this Court settled this
principle in the case of Surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab &
Ors., (1996 (2) SCC 336 and State of Punjab vs. Mahinder
Singh Chawla (1997 (2) SCC 83. Consequent to the effect of
the said and other decisions and their resultant impact on
the State exchequer and other actors led the State
Government to reconsider its old policy of 1991 by making
necessary modifications, deletionsa through order dated
9.9.94 till it was substituted through a new policy dated
13th February, 1995. All the earlier rulings were based on
the aforesaid old policy including the clarification dated
8th October, 1991. The same was partially withdrawn on 9th
September, 1994 followed by placing the new policy on 13th
February, 1995. In short respondents grievance, is the claim
which was allowed by this Court earlier when such employees
were admitted for heart ailment in escorts a non-
governmental hospital, is now being declined which was
allowed by this Court earlier when such employees were
admitted for heart ailment in Escorts a non-governmental
hospital, is now being declined which is in contradiction to
the said rulings of this Court.
In short in SLP (C) No. 13167 respondent is said have
suffered a severe heart attack on 13th March, Research
Center in an emergency. On 27th March, 1995 and was taken to
the Escorts Hearts Institute and Research Center in an
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 14
emergency. On 27th March he underwent coronary artery bypass
graft surgery. Finally he was discharged on 10th April,
1995. The entire expenses incurred for the treatment,
surgery, post-operative check up etc. came to Rs.
2,11,758,70. In May, 1996 he has submitted the bill to the
government for reimbursement.
The appellant’s stand is that as per new policy dated
13th February, 1995 the reimbursement of the medical
expenses incurred in any private hospital is only
admissible, if for such ailment, treatment is not available
in any government hospital, and for this no objection
certificate is obtained from the Civil Surgeon or Director
of Health Services as the case may be. Respondent’s case was
not referred to the Escorts for any treatment by any of the
competent authority. For any such claim an employee must
obtain no objection certificate from the concerned
authority. In cases of emergency if admitted in a private
hospital ex-post facto approval could be obtained from the
concerned authority of course within the permissible
parameters. As the claim relates to surgery conducted after
the new policy and the reimbursement amount is claimed on
the basis of the bill of the Escorts, the same is, according
to appellant not permissible in as much as the Committee of
Technical Experts has decided as per the new policy that
only rates as prevalent in All India Institute of Medical
Sciences, New Delhi, will be paid.
The respondents with vehemence challenge this stand
and the new policy of the appellant which has come into
force on 13.2.95 as the same being violative of Article 21
of the Constitution of India. It is argued this is one of
the most sacred fundamental rights given to its citizen.
Since right to life is protected under this Article hence
refusing to pay the amount spent to save one’s life amounts
to the curtailment of such right, hence violative of Article
21. In earlier decisions this Court has said that the right
to live does not mean mere survival or animal existence but
includes the right to live with Human dignity. In other
words, man’s Life should be meaningful, worth living. Pith
and substance of life is the health, which is the nucleus of
all activities of life including that of an employee or
other viz. the physical, social, spiritual or any
conceivable human activities. If this is denied, it is said
everything crumbles.
This Court has time and again emphasised to the
Government and other authorities for focussing and giving
priority and other authorities for focussing and giving
priority to the health of its, citizen, which not only makes
one’s life meaningful, improves one’s efficiency, but in
turn gives optimum out put. Further to secure protection of
one’s life is one of the foremost obligation of the State,
it is not merely a right enshrined under Article 21 but an
obligation cast on the State to provide this both under
Article 21 and under Article 47 of the Constitution. The
obligation includes improvement of public health as its
primary duty. Learned counsel for the appellant on the other
hand does not deny such a right but urges that the same can
be placed within permissible limits by rules and policies
laid down. The right claimed may be sacrosanct, which has to
be given, but the same can be put within reasonable limits,
under a policy which is framed after taking into
consideration various factors. Thus the only question is,
whether the new policy is arbitrary, unreasonable violative
of any law or principle to be struck down. Of corse it has
to stand to the test of reasonableness and not to erode or
curtail any of the Constitutional or Statutory right of any
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 14
employee, If not, the claim cannot go beyond the policy.
Shri Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellants submits with force that it would be no
violation, if medical facility in absolute term as desired
is not provided because of any financial constraints viz.
lack of financial resources or for such other reasons. No
right under the Constitution is absolute in term. It has to
be balanced with the need, equity and the resources
available.
In Vincent Panikurlangara vs. Union of India: (1987 ) 2
SCC 165;
"Para 16 - In a series of
pronouncement during the recent
years this court has called out
from the provisions of part IV of
the Constitution these several
obligations of the State and Called
upon it to effectuate them in order
that the resultant pictured by the
Constitution Fathers may become a
reality. As pointed out by us,
maintenance and improvement of
public health have to rank high as
these are indispensable to the very
physical betterment of these
depends the building of the society
of which the Constitution makers
envisages. Attending to public
health, in our opinion, therefore,
is of high priority - perhaps the
one at the top."
" The expression ’life’ assured in
Article 21 does not connote mere
animal existence or continued
drudgery through life. It has a
much wider meaning which includes
right to livelihood, better
standard of living, hygienic
conditions in the work place and
leisure facilities and
opportunities to eliminate sickness
and physical disability of the
workmen. Health of the workman
enables him to enjoy the fruits of
his labour, to keep him physically
fit and human right to protect his
health. In that case health
insurance, while in service or
after retirement was held to be a
fundamental right and even private
industries are enjoined to provide
health insurance to the workmen."
In Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. vs.
Employees State Insurance
corporation, 1996 (2) SCC 682;
"Para 9 - The Constitution
envisages the establishment of a
welfare State at the federal level
as well as at the State level. In a
welfare State the primary duty of
the Government is to secure the
welfare of the people. Providing
adequate medical facilities for the
people is an essential part of the
obligations under taken by the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 14
Government in the welfare State.
The Government discharges this
obligation by running hospitals and
health centers which provide
medical care to the person seeking
to avail of those facilities.
Article 21 imposes an obligation on
the State to safeguard the right to
life of every person. Preservation
of human life is thus of paramount
importance. The government
hospitals run by the State and the
medical officers employed therein
are duty bound to extend medical
assistance for preserving human
life. Failure on the part of a
government hospital to provide
timely medical treatment to a
person in need of such treatment
results in violation of his right
to life guaranteed under Article
21."
In Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor
Samity Vs. State of West Bengal,
1996 (4) SCC 36;
"Para 16- It is no doubt true that
financial resources are needed for
providing these facilities. But at
the same time it cannot be ignored
that it is the constitutional
obligation of the State to provide
adequate medical services to the
people. Whatever is necessary for
this purpose has to be done. In the
context of the constitutional
obligation to provide free legal
aid to a poor accused this Court
has held that the State cannot
avoid its constitutional obligation
in that regard on account of
financial constraints. The said
observations would apply with
equal, if not greater, force in the
matter of discharge of
constitutional obligation of the
State has to be kept in view."
On the basis of last decision reference to above, the
question is, whether such a right is absolute and no
financial constraints could be pleaded or if it could be, to
what extent? This we would be adverting little later.
Learned counsel for the appellants fairly submits that
in respect of any such claim of reimbursement for a period
prior to the new policy, the old policy of 1991 as modified
before the new policy would be applicable. so far as the old
policy goes the law is well settled through various
decisions of this Court about which there is not much
dispute.
Before proceeding further we would like to refer to a
preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the
respondent that under this new policy when the State
Government denied such claim of an employee in
circumstances similar to the present case, the said employee
filed a writ petition which was allowed by the High Court in
the case of Varian Singh vs. State of Punjab (1996 (4) SLR
177) against that judgment the State filed SLP (C) No. 12954
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 14
of 1996 and it was dismissed by this Court on 17th December,
1996. Hence it is contended for the respondent that the
State cannot take up the same stand which has become final.
We are informed and it is not disputed that the said
dismissal of the SLP was not by any reasoned order. Points
raised here before us was neither raised nor decided in that
SLP by this Court. As this question is likely to come in
future, we feel it is necessary to decide and settle it.
Hence this preliminary objection raised by the respondent
has no force.
The validity of the claim of the respondents has been
upheld by the High Court under the impugned order and the
which respondent has been held entitled to total
reimbursement of his expenses incurred in a private
hospital. To appreciate all this it is necessary to shortly
give the periphery of the earlier policy of 1991 and the new
policy dated 13th February, 1995.
The old policy of 1991 was framed in supersession of
the earlier Punjab Government’s letter dated 27th May, 1987.
This is a policy for the reimbursement of the medical
expenses incurred on treatment taken abroad or in a hospital
other than the hospitals of the Government of Punjab (both
outside and in the State of Punjab). Relevant portion of the
same is quoted hereunder:
"The person who is in need of
medical treatment outside India or
in any hospital outside and in the
State of Punjab) as the case may be
may make an application for getting
treatment in these hospitals
directly to the Director, Health
and Family Welfare, 2 months in
advance, duly recommended by the
CMO/Medical Superintendent
indicating that the treatment for
the disease mentioned is not
available in the hospital of the
Government of Punjab. In case of
emergency duly authenticated by
CMO/Medical Superintendent the
application can be made 15 days in
advance.
Director, Health and Family
Welfare, Punjab will place the
application of the employee
concerned before the Medical Board
within 15 days on the receipt of
application. In case of emergency,
if immediate meeting of Medical
Board cannot be convened, such
application may be circulated to
all the members of the Medical
Board and decision taken thereof.
Thereafter on 8th October, 1991, the policy was further
clarified so far as the choice of hospitals is concerned
which is also quoted hereunder:-
"Policy for reimbursement of
medical expenses incurred on
medical treatment taken abroad and
in hospitals other than those of
the Government of Punjab, both
within and outside the State was
laid down. However, as per the 12th
item of these instructions, a list
of those diseases for which
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 14
specialised treatment was not
available in the government
hospitals was to the prepared in
addition to identifying medical
institutions/hospitals/clinics of
repute where such specialised
treatment was available. Open Heart
Surgery; Escorts heart Institute,
New Delhi; Christian medical
College, Ludhiana; Apollo Hospital,
Madras."
We find two significant points in
the said policy, one the procedural and
the other nominating few designated
hospitals other than government hospital
for treatment. The procedure laid down
under this was very onerous, some times
not workable, specially in emergency
cases. Under it if one needs medical
treatment either outside India or in any
hospital other than the Hospital of
Government of Punjab, an application
seeking approval for such treatment in
such hospital has to be made to the
Director of Health and Family Welfare
two months in advance duly recommended
by CMO/Medical Superintendent indicating
that the treatment for such disease is
not available in the hospital of the
Government of Punjab. In cases of
emergency such application is to the
authenticated by CMO/MS to be made
fifteen days in advance. It is this
procedure which deprived persons from
getting prompt and better treatment at
other places. Some of the serious
diseases do not knock or warn through
bell giving them time. Emergency cases
require immediate treatment and if with
a view to comply with procedure one has
to wait then it could be fatal. One may
not in such cases live, if such a
procedure is strictly followed. It seems
keeping this in light, the Government in
1991 modified its policies by including
Escorts Heart Institute, New Delhi;
Christian Medical College, Ludhiana and
Appollo Hospital, Madras, in case of
Open heart Surgery as the designated
hospitals for treatment of such
permissible diseases. Government in its
1991 policy, also reserved its right to
revise the list in future. The listing
of the aforesaid designated hospitals
was with the approval of the Finance
Department. Thereafter on 9th September,
1994 on the advice of the Finance
Department the aforesaid 1991 policy was
again modified by withdrawing the
clarification dated 8th October, 1991
wherein private hospitals in the State
and outside were recognised for
treatment. hence the benefit of the
designated hospitals was no longer
available to an employee for being
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 14
reimbursed towards his medical expenses.
it is in this background present that
the new policy dated 5th October, 1995
has come in to force. The relevant
portion of the Said State Policy is
reproduced below:-
" As per instructions issued vide
Punjab Government letter No. 7/7/85
- 5HBV/2498, dated 25.1.1991 the
policy regarding reimbursement of
medical emphases incurred on
medical treatment taken abroad an
din hospitals other than the
hospitals of the Government of
Punjab (both outside and inside the
State of Punjab) was laid down. The
Government has reviewed the
decisions taken in the aforesaid
letter and it has now been decided
as under:-
TREATMENT AT AIIMS
-----------------
District Civil Surgeons shall be
competent to permit treatment of a
particular disease at AIIMS, New
Delhi on the basis of
recommendations of the District
level Standing Medical Board
provided the treatment is not
available in the Government
Hospitals of the State.
The expenditure on reimbursable
items on such a treatment in AIIMS,
New Delhi, shall be reimbursed to
Government employees/pensioners.
TREATMENT IN PRIVATE HOSPITALS IN
THE COUNTRY
-----------------------------------
---------
It has been decided that employees
and pensioners should be given
freedom to get treatment in any,
private institute/hospital (of
their own choice), in the country
provided that he/she gives an
undertaking out of his/her free
will and in an unambiguous terms
that he/she will accept
reimbursement of expenses incurred
by him/her on his/her treatment to
the level of expenditure as per
rates fixed by the Director, Health
and Family Welfare, Punjab for a
similar treatment package or actual
expenditure whichever is less. The
rate for a particular treatment
would be included in the advice
issued by the District/State
medical Board. A Committee of
technical experts shall be
constituted by the Director Health
and Family Welfare Punjab to
finalise the rates of various
treatment packages and the same
rate list shall be made available
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 14
in the offices of the Civil
Surgeons of the State.
However, this permission would be
granted by the Director, health and
Family Welfare, Punjab on the
advice of State medical Board in
case of treatment in Private
Hospitals outside the State and the
District Medical Board in case of
treatment in private hospitals
within the State.
It is further submitted that in an
emergent case prior permission
could be waived from the Medical
Board but Ex-post facto approval
from the Medical Board for
reimbursement of medical expenses
is absolutely essential in
accordance with the instructions
dated 5.10.1995.
TREATMENT ABROAD
------------------
The treatment of a disease in a
country abroad would be permitted
in extremely rare cases where
satisfactory treatment and follow
up should be recommended by the
State Medical Board. Prior approval
of the State Medical Board shall be
a pre-requisite in such cases. All
efforts should be made by the
concerned employee/pensioner to
take prior approval of the State
Medical Board."
Learned counsel for the respondents strongly relies on
the case of Surjit Singh (supra). The contention is that in
that case the claim for getting reimbursement expenses
incurred in Escorts was upheld and hence it would be
impermissible now for the State Government to deny
reimbursement of expenses incurred at Escorts on the basis
of the alleged new policy. The decision under the new policy
to reimburse expenses only on the basis of the rates at the
AIIMS, it is contended illegal. Everyone in order to protect
his life has to go wherever best possible treatment is
available. If respondent went to Escorts which was once a
designated hospital. The refusal now to reimburse expenses
incurred at Escort has no justifiable ground to stand.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length,
we find the Surjit Singh’s case admittedly was based on the
old policy. There the medical reimbursement claim, was
admissible at the rate admissible in Escort’s, as Escorts’s
was one of the designated hospitals. In that case denial of
such rate was therefore rightly rejected. However, strong
reliance has been placed by the respondent on the following
paragraphs of surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab (1996 (2) SCC
336 ) which is as under:
"Para 9 - The Policy, providing
recognition for treatment of open
heart surgery in the escorts,
specifically came to be examined by
a Division bench of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
titled as Sadhu R. Pail vs. State
of Punjab (1994) 1 SLR 283 (P & H)
wherein the claim of the then writ
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 14
petitioner to medical reimbursement
was accepted when in order to save
his life he had got himself
operated upon in the Escorts, and
the plea of the State that he could
be paid rates as prevalent in the
AIIMS was rejected. special leave
Petition No. 22024 of 1995 against
the said decision was dismissed by
this Court on 2.2.94."
"Para 12- The appellant therefore
had the right to take steps in
self-preservation. he did not have
to stand in queue before the
Medical Board, the manning and
assembling of which, barefacedly,
makes its meetings difficult to
happen. The appellant also did not
have to stand in queue in the
government hospital of AIIMS and
could go elsewhere to an
alternative hospital as per
policy."
Same argument is submitted for drawing parity with the
said case. Here also it is urged, when one gets heart attack
he has to wait in a long queue, in the government hospital
and may be by the time his turn comes he may not survive. it
is hence argued that the medical facility provided would be
futile.
As aforesaid the said decision would render no
assistance to the respondents. Under the old policy there
were designated hospital including Escorts. That was the
foundation of the Said decision. relevant portion in this
regard is quoted hereunder:-
"When the State itself has brought
for it to contend that the
appellant could in no event have
gone to Escorts and his claim
cannot on that basis be allowed, on
suppositions. We think to the
contrary. In the facts and
circumstances, had the appellant
remained in India, he could have
gone to Escorts like many others
did, to save his life."
(Surjit Singh’s case (Supra).
That was a case where the petitioner got heart attack
being in England and was hospitalised and operated in
Burminghom hospital and this Court held that is as much as
Escort was one of the designated hospital under the old
policy of the reimbursement permissible to the appellant
would be at the rate as that of Escorts and not of AIIMS as
ordered by the State.
The right of the State to change its policy from time
to time, under the changing circumstances is neither
challenged nor could it be. let us now examine this new
policy. learned senior counsel for the appellants submits
that the new policy is more liberal in as much as it gives
freedom of choice to every employee to undertake treatment
in any private hospital of his own choice any where in the
country. The only clog is that the reimbursement would be to
the level of expenditure as per rates which are fixed by the
Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab for a similar
package treatment or actual expenditure which ever is less.
Such rate for a particular treatment will be included in the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 14
advice issued by the District/State Medical Board for fixing
this. Under the said policy a Committee of Technical Experts
is constituted by the Director to finalize the rates of
various treatment packages and such rate list shall be made
available to the offices of the Civil surgeons of the State.
Under this new policy, it is clear that none has to wait in
a queue. One can avail and go to any private hospital
anywhere in India. Hence the objection that, even under the
new policy in emergency one has to wait in a queue as a
argued in Surjit Singh case (supra) does not hold good.
In this regard Mr. Sodhi appearing for the State of
Punjab has specifically stated that as per the Director’s
decision under the new policy, the present rate admissible
to any employee is the same as prevalent in AIIMS. It is
also submitted, under the new policy in case of emergency if
prior approval for treatment in the private hospital is not
obtained, the ex-post-facto sanction can be obtained later
from the concerned Board or authority for such medical
reimbursement. After due consideration we find these to be
reasonable.
Now we revert to the last submission, whether the new
State policy is justified in not reimbursing an employee,
his full medical expenses incurred on such treatment, if
incurred in any hospital in India not being a Government
hospital in Punjab. Question is whether the new policy which
is restricted by the financial constraints of the State to
the rates in AIIMS would be in violation of Article 21 of
the Constitution of India. so far as questioning the
validity of governmental policy is concerned in our view it
is not normally within the domain of any court, to weigh the
pros and cons of the policy or to scrutinize it and test the
degree of its beneficial or equitable disposition for the
purpose of varying modifying or annulling it, based on
however sound and good reasoning, except where it is
arbitrary or violative of any constitutional, statutory or
any other provision of law. When Government forms its
policy, it is based on number of circumstances on facts, law
including constraints based on its resources. It is also
based on expert opinion. it would be dangerous if court is
asked to test the utility, beneficial effect of the policy
or its appraisal based on facts set out on affidavits. The
Court would dissuade itself from entering into this realm
which belongs to the executive. It is within this matrix
that it is to be seen whether the new policy violates
Article 21 When it restricts reimbursement on account of its
financial constraints.
When we speak about a right, it corelates to a duty
upon another, individual, employer, government or authority.
In other words, the right of one is an obligation of
another. Hence the right of a citizen to live under Article
21 casts obligation on the State. This obligation is further
reinforced under Article 47, it is for the State to secure
health to its citizen as its primary duty. No doubt
government is rendering this obligation by opening
Government hospitals and health centers, but in order to
make it meaningful, it has to be within the reach of its
people, as far as possible, o reduce the queue of waiting
lists, and it has to provide all facilities for which an
employee looks for at another hospital. Its up-keep;
maintenance and cleanliness has to be beyond aspersion. To
employ best of talents and tone up its administration to
give effective contribution. Also bring in awareness in
welfare of hospital staff for their dedicated service, give
them periodical, medico-ethical and service oriented
training, not only at then try point but also during the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 14
whole tenure of their service. Since it is one of the most
sacrosanct and a valuable rights of a citizen and equally
sacrosanct sacred obligation of the State, every citizen of
this welfare State looks towards the State for it to perform
its this obligation with top priority including by way
allocation of sufficient funds. This in turn will not only
secure the right of its citizen to the best of their
satisfaction but in turn will benefit the State in achieving
its social, political and economical goal. for every return
there has to be investment. Investment needs resources and
finances. So even to protect this sacrosanct right finances
are an inherent requirement. Harnessing such resources needs
top priority.
Coming back to test the claim of respondents, the State
can neither urge nor say that it has no obligation to
provide medical facility. If that were so it would be ex
facie violative of Article 21. Under the new policy, medical
facility continues to be given and now an employee is given
free choice to get treatment in any private hospital in
India but the amount of payment towards reimbursement is
regulated. Without fixing any specific rate, the new policy
refers to the obligation of paying at the rate fixed by the
Director. The words are;
" .... to the level of expenditure
as per the rate fixed by the
Director, Health and Family
Welfare, Punjab for a similar
treatment package or actual
expenditure which ever is less."
The new policy does not leave this fixation to the
sweet will of the Director but it is to be done by a
Committee of technical experts.
" The rate for a particular
treatment would be included in the
advice issued by the District/State
Medical Board. A Committee of
technical experts shall be
constituted by the Director, Health
and Family Welfare, Punjab to
finalize the roles of various
treatment packages."
No State of any country can have unlimited resources to
spend on any of its project. That is why it only approves
its projects to the extent it is feasible. The same holds
good for providing medical facilities to its citizen
including its employees. Provision of facilities cannot be
unlimited. It has to be to the extent finance permit. If no
scale or rate is fixed then in case private clinics or
hospitals increase their rate to exorbitant scales, the
State would be bound to reimburse the same. Hence we come to
the conclusion that principle of fixation of rate and scale
under this new policy is justified and cannot be held to be
violative of Article 21 or Article 47 of the Constitution of
India.
In Vincent vs. Union of India: AIR (1987) SC 990:
" In a welfare State, therefore, it
is the obligation of the State to
ensure the creation and the
sustaining of conditions congenial
to good health..... In a series of
pronouncements during the recent
years, this court has culled out
from the provisions of Part- IV of
the Constitution, the several
obligations of the State and called
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 14
upon it to effectuate them in order
that the resultant picture by the
constitution fathers may become a
reality."
The next question is whether the modification of the
policy by the State by deleting its earlier decision of
permitting reimbursement at the Escort and other designated
hospital’s rate is justified or not? This of course will
depend on the facts and circumstances. We have already held
that this court would not interfere with any opinion formed
by the government if it is based on relevant facts and
circumstances or based on expert advice.
Any State endeavor for giving best possible health
facility has direct co-relation with finances. Every State
for discharging its obligation to provide some projects to
its subject requires finances. Article 41 of the
Constitution gives recognition to this aspect. ’Article 41:
Right to work, to educate and to public assistance in
certain cases: The State shall, within the limits of its
economic capacity and development, make effective provisions
for securing the right to work, to education and to public
assistance in cases of unemployment, old age sickness and
disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want.’
It is submitted by the appellants that earlier under
the 1991 policy, for bringing in some of the designated
Hospital for treatment, sanction from Finance department was
obtained. Later upon an appraisal of its expenditure it was
found that the bulk of the States budget was being taken by
few elites for such treatment like Heart ailment etc. to the
detriment of large number of other employees who suffered.
hence on the advise of the Finance department by means of
order dated 9th September, 1994 the facility of
reimbursement of full charges at designated hospital was
withdrawn even under the old policy of 1991 from 9.9.94.
Financial constraints on the State is also evident from
what is recorded in the case of Waryam Singh (supra), which
is also a case from Punjab:-
" Para 30 - When Civil Writ
Petition No. 16570 of 1995, the
Court issued a notice to the
respondents to show cause as to why
a direction may not be issued to
the Government to decided all
pending matters of medical dated
16.11.1995, the learned Government
counsel produced before the Court a
list of cases pending in 57
departments/offices of the
Government of Punjab. these lists
show that over 20,000 cases
involving claim of medical
reimbursement ar pending in the
various departments/offices of the
Government. In some cases, the
claim is for as small amount as of
Rs. 10/- and as high as of Rs.
1,75,000/-. these lists also show
that some cases of medical
reimbursement are pending for last
more than six years. In other
cases, the duration of pendency is
less. Reasons given in majority of
the cases are absence of sanction
of paucity of funds."
Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 14
Writ petition filed, the respondent did not specifically
challenge the new policy of 1995. If that was done the State
would have placed all such material in detail to show the
financial strain. We having considered the submission of
both the parties, on the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
hold that the appellant’s decision to exclude the designated
hospital cannot be said be such as to be violative of
Article 21 of the Constitution. No right could be absolute
in a welfare State. A man is a social animal. He cannot live
without the cooperation of large number of persons. Every
article one uses is the contribution of many. Hence every
individual right has to give way to the right of public at
large. Not every fundamental right under Part III of the
Constitution is not absolute and it is o be within
permissible reasonable restriction. This principle equally
applies when there is any constraint on the health budget on
account of financial stringencies. But we do hope that
government will give due consideration and priority to the
health budget in future and render what is best possible.
For the aforesaid reasons and findings we uphold
governments new policy dated 13th February, 1995 and further
hold it not to be violative of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
In the Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos.
13167/97 and 12418/97, the surgery at Escorts was after the
introduction of the new policy and therefore the extent of
medical reimbursement can be only according to the rates
prescribed by AIIMS. However, the respondents therein are
not entitled to the full expenditure that was incurred at
Escorts. We therefore, allow the appeals in part and direct
that the respondents are entitled to reimburse only at AIIMS
rate. The appellant will therefore reimburse the respondents
to the extent within one month from today.
The appeals arising out of SLP (C) No. 12143/97 and
12144/97 though the treatment at Escorts was after the new
policy the amount as claimed has already been paid at
Escorts rates. On the facts and circumstances of this case,
we are not inclined to interfere and therefore no question
of any refund arises. These appeals are dismissed.
So far as the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.
11968/97 is concerned, we find that the respondent had the
heart attack on 9th February, 1995 and was advised to go to
Delhi on 18th February, 1995 but on account of long strike
in the All India Institute of medical sciences (AIIMS) he
was admitted in the Escorts. On those facts we are not
inclined to interfere. the respondents has been paid at the
admissible are the in AIIMS but claims the difference
between what is paid and what is admissible rate at Escort.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of this Case we hold
that the respondent in SLP (C) No. 11968/97 is entitled to
be paid the difference amount of what is paid and what is
the rate admissible in Escorts then. The same should be paid
within one month from today. We make it clear reimbursement
to the respondents as approved by us be not treated as
precedent but has been given on the facts and circumstances
of these cases.
For the reasons and findings recorded herein before,
the new policy dated 13th February, 1995 is upheld. The
impugned High Court orders to that extent are set aside,
Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 13167 and 12418 of 1997
are allowed to the extent indicated above and are disposed
of accordingly. Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 12143,
12144 and 11968 of 1997 are dismissed, subject to the
further direction given in the appeal arising out of SLP (C)
No. 11968 of 1997. There will be no order as to costs.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 14