SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 2163

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.
Mrs. Ivy Miller Chahal W/o Late Gurmail Singh Chahal - Appellant
Vs.
Union Of India - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 27013 of 2025 (GM-RES)
Decided On : 03-12-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri. A Madhusudhana Rao.,Advocate
For the Respondent: Smt. Reshma K T., CGC

Denial of reimbursement for emergency medical treatment under CGHS violates constitutional rights and undermines the scheme's welfare purpose.

Headnote:(A) Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) - Medical reimbursement for emergency medical treatment - The petitioner sought judicial intervention for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred for CRT-D implant for her late husband, which was denied based on the respondent's technical opinion regarding necessity. The court emphasized the importance of treating doctors' judgments in emergency cases and the broader implications of health entitlements under Article 21 of the Constitution, determining that denial of reimbursement effectively negates the CGHS's intended welfare purpose. (Paras 18-21, 25, 28, 31-35)

(B) Legal principles - The principles of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel apply, as the CGHS represents a commitment by the State to support eligible beneficiaries' medical needs. Denying legitimate claims undermines a government worker's reliance on these assurances. (Paras 21-22, 40-41)

(C) Article 14 and 21 - The court asserted that arbitrary administrative action inconsistent with established constitutional guarantees violates the rights to equality and life. Procedural unfairness and arbitrary denial of legitimate medical claims contradict the very essence of welfare provisions. (Paras 37-38)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner's husband underwent an emergency CRT-D implantation, with associated costs for which the reimbursement was denied by the CGHS despite the claim being filed correctly. The petition was filed after multiple communications resulted in rejection based on a post-event technical opinion.

Findings of Court:
The court ordered the reimbursement of expenses, quashed the rejection, and stressed the urgency of implementing a cashless treatment mechanism for emergency cases.

Issues: The court addressed the legitimacy of technical rejections versus the medical necessity determined by treating physicians, the rights associated with CGHS enrollment, and the broader implications on life and health under constitutional mandates.

Ratio Decidendi: Ensuring that the CGHS fulfills its welfare mandate is intrinsic to protecting the dignity and rights of state employees and pensioners. The court ruled against the arbitrary denial of legitimate reimbursement claims, affirming the importance of emergency medical judgment.

Result: Writ petition allowed; reimbursement ordered.

Table of Content
1. overview of the petitioner's background and medical circumstance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. reference to prior case law and its applicability. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
3. court's reasoning based on constitutional rights and precedent. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
4. discussion on responsibilities of the state in health care. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
5. recommendations for policy changes regarding medical reimbursements. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
6. order issued by the court. (Para 42)

ORDER :

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.

1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

WHEREFORE it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing the impugned email communications dated 07/10/2024, 20/11/2024, and 04/03/2025 sent by Respondent No. 3 produced at Annexures- M, P, and T, respectively, and further issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to make full reimbursement of the medical reimbursement claim of the Petitioner dated 26/12/2023 in respect of the CRT-D implantation of the late husband of the Petitioner as acknowledged by Respondent No. 3, as per their receipt/acknowledgement bearing MRC No. 3559/2023/BNGLR/BA04 as per Annexure- G, and allow this writ petition with costs, and grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The Petitioner is a retired officer from the Indian Administrative Service from the Madhya Pradesh cadre, having retired in the year 2010. Her husband was working in the Madhya Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation as an Executive Director. After her retirement, the Petitioner and her husband were residing in Bangalore.

3. The petitioner, being a retired IAS officer, is covered under the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS), and as such, she is entitled to all the benefits thereunder.

4. The husband of the Petitioner, being a cardiac patient, underwent two major bypass surgeries, and ever since then, he has been under cardiac supervision. In the month of April 2023, the Petitioner's husband experienced severe chest discomfort and, in an emergency, was shifted to Narayana Institute of Cardiac Sciences for treatment, where he was admitted to the Cardiac Care Unit (CCU), where his ventricular ejection fraction had been reduced to 20%. Hence, he was put on Heart Failure Management Protocol. In the month of October, 2023, the condition of the husband of the Petitioner worsened when again he was treated at Narayana Institute of Cardiac Sciences due to an emergency, and at the diagnosis and prognosis of the Doctors was given a CRT-D implant to protect against sudden death on account of ectopic beats in the heart, which was implanted on 31.10.2023. As regards which the Petitioner had incurred an expense of Rs.15,30,093/- including the cost of the implant CRT-D implant being Rs.13,17,487.36/- as regards which an invoice has been issued. The Petitioner submitted a medical reimbursement claim with Respondent No.3 for a sum of Rs.15,30,093/- on 26.12.2023, which claim was confirmed by way of SMS by Respondent No.3. Unfortunately, the Petitioner's husband on 18.03.2024 suffered from severe breathlessness and nausea and though he was rushed to the hospital, he could not be revived. Until then the claim of the Petitioner had not been satisfied.

5. The Petitioner had submitted a representation on 28.06.2024 requesting for full reimbursement and disbursement of the amounts due. Finally, on 11.09.2024, Respondent No.3 sent an email to the Petitioner requesting the Petitioner to submit the ECG report, which was submitted with great difficulty since the implantation had been done a year earlier on 31.10.2023, and a claim had been submitted on 26.12.2023. Despite the said submission, Respondent No.3 did not pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top