Delhi HC Orders ₹11.83 Lakh For Journalist’s Wife’s Emergency Care, Says Government Hospitals’ COVID Designation Functioned Like A Strike In Her Case

The petitioner, an accredited journalist, sought reimbursement of ₹11,83,105.21 for his wife’s treatment at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and Sir Ganga Ram City Hospital.

After she was examined at G.B. Pant Hospital, she was referred elsewhere because vascular-surgery facilities were unavailable there; the petitioner also relied on the designation of government hospitals as COVID-19 hospitals during the relevant period.

The private hospital’s emergency certificate recorded that his wife required urgent admission and treatment.

The respondent rejected the claim on the ground that the surgery was not emergent.

It did not file a counter-affidavit, and its right to do so was closed.

Rule 7 of the notification dated 15 November 2011 entitles accredited press reporters and their family members to reimbursement for specified emergency or lifesaving treatment at recognised or empanelled private hospitals, in accordance with the applicable DGEHS provisions and subject to the listed conditions.

Condition (d) applies where emergency treatment is obtained in a private recognised or empanelled hospital when there is a strike in government hospitals.

The Court interpreted that condition functionally: the relevant consideration was the effect on the patient’s access to government-hospital services, rather than whether that unavailability resulted specifically from a strike.

No judicial precedent was cited.

The referral from G.B. Pant Hospital, together with the private hospital’s uncontroverted emergency certificate recording urgent admission and treatment, supported the petitioner’s case that his wife required emergency care and that the necessary facilities were unavailable at the government hospital.

The Court rejected the respondent’s narrow reading of condition (d): although a strike and COVID-19 designation have different causes, both could result in the suspension or unavailability of ordinary services and compel a patient to seek care elsewhere.

Because the respondent filed no counter-affidavit to controvert the evidence, the Court accepted that the petitioner was constrained to obtain treatment at the private hospitals.

It set aside the rejection letter dated 21 July 2025 and directed the respondent to reimburse ₹11,83,105.21 within eight weeks.

The respondent was permitted to recover that amount from the officer responsible for failing to file the counter-affidavit.