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

2002 Supreme(All) 711

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ.
M. D. CHAUHAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 3249a Of 1997
Decided On : 05/20/2002

Advocates Appeared:
A.K.GOEL

The central legal point established in the judgment is that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes access to healthcare and essential medicines, and genuine cases cannot be overlooked in the name of procedural requirements.

Headnote:

Healthcare Facilities - Government Servants - U.P. Government Servant (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1946 - G.O. No. 2854/five-7-1004/80 - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Chawla, 1996 AWC (Sappl.) 745 (SC) : AIR 1997 SC 1225 - Parmanand v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 2039 - State of Karnataka v. Appa Balla, 1995 (4) SCC 469

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, retired Government servants, sought reimbursement of medical expenses and supply of essential medicines under the U.P. Government Servant (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1946, alleging denial of healthcare facilities by the Government hospitals.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondents failed to provide adequate healthcare facilities to the petitioners, violating their entitlement under the U.P. Government Servant (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1946 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Issues: The issues revolved around the denial of healthcare facilities, reimbursement of medical expenses, and supply of essential medicines to the retired Government servants.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live with human dignity, encompassing access to healthcare and essential medicines. It emphasized that genuine cases cannot be overlooked in the name of procedural requirements and that judges should respond to meet the felt necessity of time and social needs to make meaningful the right to life.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to reimburse the medical bills of petitioner No. 1, disregarding the objections of the respondents. No order was passed in respect to petitioner No. 2, who had passed away.

RAKESH TIWARI, J.


( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by two retired Government servants, who are now about 80 years of age. It is stated by petitioner No. 1 that he retired on 23. 2. 1981. He claims that he had suffered from chest pain on 30. 6. 1994 and had consulted Dr. D. K. Agarwal, Assistant Professor cardiology, Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad on 7. 7. 1994 and was referred to All india Institute of Medical Sciences, where he was admitted and was treated by Dr. U. Kaul, professor of Cardiology. All India Institute of Medical Sciences. New Delhi. Thereafter he got himself regularly checked up by Dr. B. B, Singh, Superintendent of T. B. Sapru Hospital, allahabad. It is alleged that he made request for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by him and further to refer his case to Dr. U. Kaul, Professor of Cardiology, All India Institute of medical Sciences, New Delhi, for further treatment. The representation was made by him to the superintendent/medical Officer Incharge, T. B. Sapru Hospital, Allahabad with copy of the c. M. O. / Additional Director Medical Health, Allahabad, and the Secretary Medical Health. It is alleged that the medicines were not supplied by the Government Hospital and he had to purchase the medicines from the local market worth Rs. 1,500 per month, which is not being reimbursed by the State.

( 2 ) PETITIONER No. 2 joined on the post of Assistant Teacher in Government Education Department at Queens College, Varanasi and retired from the post of Principal, Government Inter College, faizabad. It is alleged that he was suffering from parkinson disease and was taken to Delhi and bangalore for treatment, but to no avail. His general physical condition deteriorated to an extent that he could not lead normal life and was dependent on others. The grievance in the petition, is that the medicines were not supplied to him from the Government Hospital and he had to purchase medicines from the local market every month.

( 3 ) THE grievance of the petitioners is that both the petitioners were Government servants and were employed in Government jobs and were governed by the provisions of the U. P. Government Servant (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1946. It is claimed that they are entitled to the reimbursement of local purchase in pursuance of the G. O. No. 2854/five-7-1004/80, Chi. Anu. 7, dated 3. 6. 1980 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) and supply of drugs/ medicines which are essential for their life, but this facility is being denied to them.

( 4 ) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Government is under obligation to provide free health care to its employees including retired personnel and that it is an integral part of article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is alleged that the respondents have miserably failed in discharging their obligation as the respondents are neither supplying adequate medicines nor providing requisite medical facility to the petitioners. Both the petitioners are senior citizens and have moved the Court for following reliefs :

(a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 to each of the petitioners separately in order to meet atleast last three years medical expenses, (b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to refer the case of petitioner No. 1 to All India Medical Sciences for Coronary Angiography followed by Surgery, if need be, (c) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to supply medicines regularly to the petitioners as per their need, (d) to issue any other writ, order or direction which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, (e) to award costs of the petition to the petitioners.

( 5 ) COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT has been filed by the Chief Medical Superintendent, T. B. Sapru Hospital, allahabad, stating that under the rules and the Government orde














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
whatsapp-icon Back to top