‘Not by choice’: Punjab and Haryana High Court orders release of medical dues to retired employee for treatment amid Covid
The retired staff member of the Punjab and Haryana High Court had sought a direction to the authorities to release the remaining amount of Rs 1.86 lakh.
The petitioner’s counsel asserted that a government employee is entitled to reimbursement of medical expenditure during his lifetime and no fetters can be placed upon the right. (AI-generated image) Punjab and Haryana High Court news: Observing that a retired high court employee had shifted his wife to a private hospital during the Covid-19 pandemic “not by choice or luxury” but out of necessity, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently directed authorities to release the remaining Rs 1.86 lakh towards reimbursement of the medical expenses.
Justice Kuldeep Tiwari was hearing the plea filed by Vidya Parkash Gupta, a retired superintendent of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and observed that the authorities’ action in denying the full medical claim was “preposterous.”
Justice Kuldeep Tiwari emphasised that a legal wrong cannot exist without there being a legal remedy.
“In the wake of the position sketched out above, this court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner had shifted his wife to a private hospital under exceptional circumstances and not by choice or for luxury. Hence, the issue is answered in favour of the petitioner,” the May 13 order read.
The high court was hearing the plea of Gupta, who sought a direction to the authority concerned to release the remaining amount of Rs 1.86 lakh out of the total expenditure of Rs 4.43 lakh incurred by him for the treatment of his wife.
Pandemic period
- The Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out that in August 2022, the entire nation was engulfed in the clutches of an unprecedented situation created by the deadly coronavirus.
- It led to a nationwide lockdown, confining the citizens to their homes, with a restriction to move out only in exceptional circumstances.
- Everyone has witnessed the situation where the healthcare system was under tremendous pressure, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recalled.
- The hospital authorities were even struggling to provide timely treatment to the patients requiring urgent and critical care, particularly those who were on the verge of succumbing to the life-threatening virus and other fatal ailments.
Primary object of policy
- The primary object of the medical treatment policy is to regulate the claim of medical reimbursement of its employees, and not to curtail their pre-existing rights, the Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out.
- It further noted that the said policy does not address the exceptional circumstances that the petitioner faced.
- The court referred to the legal aphorism ‘ubi jus ibi remedium’ – where there is a right, there is a remedy.
- This principle signifies that if a citizen’s legal right is breached, the law must provide a remedy.
- A legal wrong cannot exist without there being a legal remedy, the Punjab and Haryana High Court emphasised.
- This principle emphatically denotes that no wrong should go without redress, and only in this way, the courts can establish faith in the rule of law.
- The court directed the authorities to release the balance amount, in terms of the claim raised by the petitioner, within eight weeks.
Background
The petitioner retired as a superintendent from the Punjab and Haryana High Court on January 31, 1997. His wife, who was already suffering from multifarious health issues, fell in the bathroom on August 22, 2020, resulting in a thigh injury and severe pain.
Accordingly, the petitioner immediately took her to the hospital, where she was administered first aid. Thereafter, an X-ray was conducted, which suggested that she suffered an ‘intertrochanteric (left femur) fracture, and required a surgical intervention.
Since the hospital concerned was not equipped with the facilities to undertake the required complex surgery, she was referred to a higher centre, via referral/medical. He was left with no other option but to take her to a hospital, where she could be operated on immediately.
Therefore, he allegedly took her to a private hospital where she was operated upon, and remained admitted for 13 days, and the total expenses incurred on the treatment were worked out to Rs 4.43 lakh.
Consequently, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation delineating his ordeal, appended therewith the entire medical record, including bills, prescriptions, etc, to the respondent authorities for reimbursement. The authorities reimbursed only Rs 2.57 lakh, deducting Rs 1.86 lakh under government reimbursement rules in 2021.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking reimbursement of the balance amount.
Arguments
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Vaneet Soni argued that the wife of the petitioner was admitted to the private hospital in an emergent situation, and not by choice.
He asserted before the Punjab and Haryana High Court that a government employee, during his lifetime, is entitled to reimbursement on account of medical expenditure and no fetters can be placed upon such a right.
Representing the other party, advocate Munish Kapila, opposing the claim of the petitioner, asserted that a policy to regulate the claims of medical reimbursement has already been formulated by the state government.
He argued that the high court sanctioned reimbursement of medical bills of employees/pensioners and their dependents, strictly in sync with the relevant rules.
Share
