IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-33515-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 12.11.2025 Surinder Singh Kundu ....Petitioner Versus Managing Director and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Sandeep Thakan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Prince Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the impugned order dated 08.10.2025 (Annexure P-9) and directing the respondents to release the full reimbursement of the medical bills amounting to Rs. 8,77,955/- instead of the already paid amount of Rs.4,15,531/-, along with interest @ 24%

per annum.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner, a retired XEN, met with an accident near Palwal. He was initially taken to a local hospital in Palwal but due to the critical X-ray report, he was immediately taken to Inderprestha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi, in an emergency condition for further treatment, where he remained admitted until 19.02.2025. He further submits that the petitioner under the compelling circumstances has got the treatment from a non-empanelled hospital. He further submits that the admission of the petitioner was strictly made under the emergency situation in order to save his life as discernible from the Emergency Certificate (Annexure P-5) and the Discharge Summary. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 10669 of 2017, titled as Raghbir Singh v. Administrator and others, wherein while referring to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiva Kant Jha v. Union of India, (2018) 16 SCC 187, it was held that in life- threatening emergencies, full reimbursement must be granted regardless of the hospital’s empanelment as the right to health is an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner suffered a fracture as discernible from the medical record attached with the present petition. Further, the history of the petitioner regarding the injury was recorded in the discharge summary, at the time of his admission, which shows that the accident had taken place three days prior to the admission. As such, there was no imminent danger to the life of the petitioner which prompted him to take treatment from the non-empanelled hospital in order to preserve his life. Additionally, he submits that the petitioner's total medical bill of Rs.8,77,955/- was duly scrutinized by the respondent's Medical Committee as per the applicable government rates.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

5. The claim for medical reimbursement ought not to be dismissed merely because the claimant underwent treatment in a non- empanelled. In such cases, the test of essentiality and emergency comes into play, which dictates that if the medical procedure was undergone by the claimant in an emergency, on the advice of a doctor based on his medical record, in order to save his life, the reimbursement for the same must be made. Not only is the preservation of human life instinctive, but it also forms a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, it shall always retain the highest priority.

6. Moreover, the State bears an obligation to ensure the availability of timely medical care to those in need. As such, it cannot expect the citizens to refrain from availing timely care, merely for the reason of non-empanelment of the hospital. Such conduct on the part of the State does not satisfy the criteria of fairness and reasonableness and therefore, amounts to a violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgments rendered by a two Judge bench of the