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

2026 Supreme(P&H) 8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.
State of Haryana And Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Savita Yadav – Respondent
RSA-5548-2014 (O&M)
Decided On : 21-04-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the state :Mr. Harish Nain, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana
For the respondent:Mr. Aditya Yadav, Advocate and Ms. Hemlata, Advocate

Government employees are entitled to full medical reimbursement for emergency treatment, even in non-approved hospitals. Administrative authorities must process such claims within a reasonable timeframe, failing which they are liable to pay interest, as the right to health is an essential component of the right to life.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to life - Medical reimbursement - Government employees - Emergency medical treatment - Entitlement to reimbursement for treatment in non-approved hospitals - Interest on delayed payments. (Paras 8, 9, 14)

(B) Administrative Law - Welfare state - Obligation to provide medical benefits - Technicalities should not defeat substantive rights - Need for timely processing of claims - Administrative apathy - Imposition of interest for delayed payments. (Paras 14, 16, 18)

(C) Judicial Mandate - Setting timelines for administrative actions - Direction to process medical claims within two months - Liability for interest at 9% per annum for delays beyond the stipulated period. (Paras 21, 22)

Facts of the case:
A government employee underwent emergency medical treatment at private facilities. The employer curtailed the reimbursement claims, citing the non-approved status of the hospitals and delayed the processing of the claims for an extended period. The employee filed a civil suit for the balance amount and interest, which was decreed in her favor by the lower courts.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the right to life includes the right to health and medical care. Denying reimbursement for emergency treatment based on the technicality of hospital approval is arbitrary and unjust. The court affirmed the entitlement to reimbursement and the necessity of timely processing.

Issues: Whether an employee is entitled to full medical reimbursement for emergency treatment in non-approved hospitals and whether interest is payable on delayed reimbursement claims.

Ratio Decidendi: Medical reimbursement is a fundamental benefit of employment. In emergencies, the priority is saving life, not verifying hospital lists. Administrative delays in processing legitimate claims are unreasonable and warrant the imposition of interest to ensure accountability.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the factual background and procedural history of medical reimbursement claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 8)
2. summary of rival contentions regarding reimbursement entitlement and the applicability of interest on delayed payments. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. court analysis verifying medical necessity and distinguishing supreme court precedents regarding interest. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. reasoning on the necessity for timely government reimbursement and entitlement to interest for unreasonable administrative delays. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. final adjudication dismissing the appeal and establishment of mandatory guidelines for claim processing timelines. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (Oral)

1. The present regular second appeal is preferred against judgment and decree dated 22.01.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rewari, as well as judgment and decree dated 18.12.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rewari, whereby civil suit filed by the respondent was decreed in her favor and appeal filed by appellants was dismissed respectively.

2. Brief facts of the case, as per the civil suit are that husband of respondent, namely Yadu Yadav, was taken to Trauma Center, Rewari, due to severe head injury in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 08.06.2009 near Salhawas, Tehsil and District Jhajjar. But without giving any treatment, he was referred to Gurugram or Delhi. On the same date at about 8:00 p.m., he was got admitted in emergency situation in Kalyani Hospital, Gurugram. After CT scan examination and first aid, for reason of non-availability of ventilator system in the said hospital, he was discharged and taken to Paras Hospital, Gurugram on the same day at about 11:00 p.m., where he remained under treatment up to 17.07.2009 and a total sum of Rs.7,54,975/- was incurred on his treatment and after deducting the subsidy of Rs.1,54,944/- an amount of Rs.6,00,003/- was paid by respondent to the hospital. Medical claim case with original bill of aforesaid treatment was submitted before the appellants on 22.02.2010, which moved from one department to the other and ultimately objections were raised time and again for demand of documents which were already available on the file. Even the emergency certificate for treatment of husband of respondent was also obtained by Principal Government Senior Secondary School, Kosli, District Rewari, and the same was also available on the file but without examining the claim file appellants kept the case of medical reimbursement of husband of respondent pending by raising baseless objections.

3. Further, again, treatment was taken by husband of respondent since, during exercise in Physiotherapy Center, Rewari, due to his timber fracture on 04.04.2010, he was taken to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi where operation was conducted on 07.04.2010 and for this treatment a total amount of Rs.1,40,975/- was paid by respondent and the claim of medical reimbursement with bills was submitted by her, but her claim was curtailed and sanctioned to the tune of Rs.48,979/- against the bill amount of Rs.1,40,975/- and the same was paid to respondent vide order dated 09.02.2011 whereas, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi is on the approved list of Haryana Government and the treatment was taken from the said hospital and its city hospital branch, which is a part of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi, and in this way, the total of bill amount of Rs.1,40,975/- was to be paid to the respondent and the appellant wrongly withheld the amount of Rs.91,996/- from the bill amount of the respondent for which she is legally entitled, along with interest 12% interest per annum from the date of submission of the claim till the date of payment. Again, on 24.04.2010, VP (Ventriculoperitoneal) sent in the brain of husband of respondent was slipped out and he was admitted in emergency in Paras Hospital, Gurugram on the same date, where treatment was taken and an amo

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