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

2022 Supreme(Chh) 28

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.
Khuku Biswas – Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh and Others – Respondents
W.P. (S) No. 6240 of 2021
Decided On : 13-01-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Akash Kumar Kundu.
For the Respondent: Jitendra Pali.

The right to health is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the rules regarding medical reimbursement should be interpreted liberally to accommodate emergency medical situations.

Headnote:

medical reimbursement - emergency medical treatment - Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013, Rule 10(7), Rule 11 - The court discussed the provisions of Rule 10(7) and Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013, which require the intimation of emergency medical treatment within 48 hours and the provision for post-facto sanction in emergency circumstances. The court emphasized the right to health as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and interpreted the rules liberally to allow for post-facto sanction in urgent situations.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a government servant, underwent emergency spinal cord surgery and sought reimbursement of medical expenses. The medical bill was returned for not complying with the intimation requirement under Rule 10(7) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the right to health is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and emphasized the need for a liberal interpretation of the rules regarding medical reimbursement. It directed the competent authority to consider the petitioner's case for post-facto sanction under Rule 11 of the Rules of 2013 within 45 days.

Issues: Non-compliance with the intimation requirement under Rule 10(7) of the Rules of 2013 and the applicability of post-facto sanction under Rule 11 in emergency medical situations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the rules liberally in light of the fundamental right to health under Article 21 and directed the competent authority to consider the petitioner's case for post-facto sanction.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the competent authority was directed to consider the petitioner's case for post-facto sanction under Rule 11 of the Rules of 2013 within 45 days.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.

1. The petitioner herein takes exception to the order dated 16-6-2021 by which respondent No. 3 has returned her medical bill on the ground that post-facto sanction has not been accorded by the competent authority.

2. The petitioner while in service as Staff Nurse suffered surgery of her spinal cord i.e. Canal Stenosis on 29-6-2019 in V.Y. Hospital, Raipur and she was discharged on 6-7-2019. Thereafter, she claimed reimbursement of the medical bill amounting to Rs. 99,743/- which was considered by the impugned orders Annexure P-1 and P-2 and the said medical bill has been returned on the ground that she has not intimated the fact of surgery in accordance with sub-rule (5) of Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013 (for short ‘the Rules of 2013’) and consequently, she is not entitled for medical reimbursement of the aforesaid amount which has been called in question in the instant writ petition as arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

3. Return has been filed justifying the refusal to reimburse the medical bill stating inter alia that sub-rule (7) of Rule 10 of the Rules of 2013 has not been complied with and the petitioner/her family members failed to intimate to the Director, Medical Education/ Director, AYUSH and to the Head of the Department within the time limit of 48 hours from the commencement of treatment and therefore no post-facto sanction can be granted under Rule 11 of the Rules of 2013 and medical bill has rightly not been reimbursed to the petitioner.

4. No rejoinder has been filed in opposition of the return filed by the State/respondents.

5. Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that since the surgery was emergent surgery and the petitioner underwent the surgery in the hospital and remained in hospital for seven days and admittedly, she was discharged from the hospital on 5-7-2019 and thereafter, she submitted the bill which has been returned by respondent No. 3 on the ground that sub-rule (7) of Rule 10 of the Rules of 2013 has not been followed and the competent authority has not been informed within the time limit of 48 hours from the commencement of treatment. He would further submit that return of medical bill is totally arbitrary as the provision under sub-rule (7) of Rule 10 of the Rules of 2013 is not mandatory and even otherwise, self-preservation of one’s life is the necessary concomitant of the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the respondents be directed to reimburse the aforesaid amount of medical expenses in favour of the petitioner within a specified time.

6. Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents, would submit that the petitioner or her family members must have informed the Director, Medical Education/Director, AYUSH and to the Head of the Department within the time limit of 48 hours from the commencement of treatment, which has not been done and therefore Rule 11 of the Rules of 2013 cannot be invoked into.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

8. Admittedly, the petitioner was a Government servant and retired on 31-3-2020, but at the time of her treatment, she was admittedly, a Government servant and she was entitled for medical reimbursement of medical expenses incurred in her treatment in accordance with the provisions contained in the Rules of 2013. Rule 6 of the Rules of 2013 provides for treatment and reimbursement. Rule 7 provides for limitations to reimbursement and if the amount of reimbursement is more than Rs. 25,000/- the Director, Health Services; the Director, AYUSH and the Director, Medical Education after the

        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