1999 Supreme(SC) 189

1999(2) Supreme 101
Supreme Court of India
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI., M. Srinivasan & S.N. Phukan, JJ.
Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Shri Jasbir Singh -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 793 of 1999
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22321 of 1997)
Decided on 12-2-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : A.K. Goel and Ms. Sheela Goel, Advocates.
For the Respondent : P.N. Puri, Advocate.

Important Point
Norditropin injection which is essential for treatment of problem of growth in heigh, attributable to disease of pituitary glands, is not a life saving drug and as such a government servant is not entitled to reimbursement of expenditure incurred in importing the injection.

Headnote:Service Law-Reimbursement of medical expenses-Expenses on im­ported medicine-Permissible only if drug is absolutely essen­tial to ‘save life of patient-Appellant’s son had problem of growth in height attributed to disease of pituitary gland-Injec­tion Norditropin prescribed-Not available in India-Injection imported at cost of Rs. 3,13,200-Claim for reimbursement-Rejec­tion - Justified-Drug in question (Norditropin) not essential for saving life of patient-Disease not life threatening.

       Held : It is an admitted case of the parties that the policy of the Government of India, which has also been adopted by the Govern­ment of Pujab and the Board, is that where the drugs manufactured in India have proved ineffective and the prescription of some imported life saving drug is imperative for “saving the life of the patient”, such a drug can be prescribed and the patient can procedure the same either by placing an order with the foreign firm or otherwise and when that is done and the certificate is issued by the Chief Medical Officer of the District/Medical Superintendent of the hospital to the effect that he is satisfied that the drug in question is considered absolutely essential to “save the life of the patient”, reimbursement of costs of the drug, excluding the packaging charges, customs duty from charges etc. is permissible. The High Court, appears to have assumed that the drug in question was a “life saving drug”. The certificate issued by the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Chan­digarh which is available on the record at page 32, shows that the disease was not life threatening and Norditropin injection is “not a life saving drug”. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent that since the son of the respondent was suffering from a chronic disease, he was entitled to reimbursement of the medical expenses including the expenses incurred on the imported medicine on the basis of the instructions dated 1.1.1991 does not appear to be correct. A careful perusal of the instructions dated 1.1.91 shows that it only lists certain chronic diseases, the treatment for which can be done either as an out-door patient i.e. without being admitted in the hospital or by admission in the hospital. Vide para 2 of those instructions, no reimbursement limit has been fixed as an out-door patient for the employees and pensioners of the State Governments. These general instructions, however, have to be read along with the specific instructions dated 21.7.1972 and the instructions issued by the Board in 1997 declaring as a policy of the Board that reimbursement of imported drug shall be permitted only where the imported drug is a “life saving drug”. It becomes obvious from a joint reading of various instructions (supra) that reimbursement of the drugs, whether imported by the patient himself or purchased from a chemist who has imported those drugs, is permissble only where the imported drug is considered as absolutely essential to “save the life of the patient”. It is not in dispute that the drug in question was not essential for “saving the life of the patient.” That the disease of the patient was a “chronic disease” does not mean that it was “life threatening” in view of the unambiguous certificate issued by the PGI, as referred to above. The Board was, there­fore, perfectly justified on the basis of instructions referred to above and its policy decision, to decline to reimburse the medical expenses incurred on the purchase of the imported drug Norditropin, being not a “life saving drug”. Since, the High Court wrongly assumed the drug to be a “life saving drug” it clearly fell in error in issuing the direction for reimbursement of the amount. The judgment of the High Court under the circum­stances cannot be sustained. (Para 6)