PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR versus SHRI JASBIR SINGH

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 631 · Decided: 12-02-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, M. SRINIVASAN, S.N. PHUKAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR 
A 
v. 
SHRI JASBIR SINGH 
FEBRUARY 12, 1999 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., M. SRINIVASAN 
AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
B 
Medical reimbursement-Imported medicines-Government of India C 
instructions dated 21.7.1972--lnstrnctions dated 1.1.1991 issued by Govern-
ment of Punjab-Applicability of-Respondent's son suffering from pituitary 
glands--lmport of Norditropin injection-Claim for reimbursement of pur-
chase of injection--Reje~tion by appellant Boartf-Writ-Direction by High 
Court to reimburse the amount with interest-Appeal preferred by 
Board-Held, under the instrnctions reimbursement of imported drng is per-
D 
mitted only where the imported d!Ug was a "life saving d!Ug''-ln this· case 
drng in question was not essential for "saving the life of the patient"-That the 
· disease of the patient was a "chronic disease" does not mean that it was "life 
threatening''-The Board, was, therefore, perfectly justified on the basis of 
instrnctions referred to above and its policy decision, to decline to reimburse E 
the medical expenses incurred on the purchase of the imported d!Ug Nor-
ditropin, being not a "life saving drng''-Since, the High Court wrongly as-
sumed the drng to be a "life saving drng" it clearly fell in error in issuing the 
direction for reimbursement of the amount. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 793 of F 
1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.7.97 of the Punjab & Haryana 
High Court in C.W.P. No. 3607 of 1997. 
A.K. Goel and Ms. Sheela Goel for the Appellants. 
P.N. Puri for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
631 
G 
H 
632 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
The respondent's son had problem of growth in his height which was, 
in medical terms, attributed to disease of pituitary glands. Injection Nor-
ditropin was prescribed for treatment. The claim of the respondent for 
reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred on purchase of the said 
injection to the tune of Rs. 3,13,200 was rejected by the appellant Board. 
B The respondent, thereupon, filed a writ petition seeking a direction for 
reimbursement of the said amount with interest in the High Court. The 
writ petition was resisted primarily on the ground that the policy of the 
Board was not to reimburse exp.:nses on "imported medicines". 
C 
The High Court noticed that the drug in question was not available 
in India and that the same was an imported drng. The High Court, however, 
allowed the writ petition observing that the respondent's son had a serious 
problem and that since the imported drug had been duly prescribed by the 
doctor at the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Chandigarh the 
respondent was entitled to be reimbursed for the expenses incurred in 
D purchasing the imported drug. The Bench observed: 
E 
F 
"In fact, instances are not lacking where people have gone 
abroad for treatment and the expenses have been paid by the State. 
Surely, if a particular medicine is not available in India and has to 
be imported, nobody can help. A poor patient has to import the 
medicine and take it. This is precisely what appears to have 
happened in the present case. Still further no reason whatsoever 
has been advanced in the written statement to indicate as to why 
a person is not entitled to reimbursement of expenses incurred by 
him on account of the import of medicine. It can be imagined that 
if a drug is available in India and yet a person chooses to import 
a particular medicine and spends money which is avoidable, the 
competent authority may take the view that no re-imbursement 
should be allowed or that it should be confined to the expense 
G 
which the patient would have incurred on getting the drug within 
the country. However, it is not even suggested in the present case 
that the drug is available in India. In such a situation, it appears 
fair to assume that this life saving drug had to be imported. That 
being so, there would be no reasonable basis for declining to 
H 
reimburse the expenses." 
P.B. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. JASBIR SINGH 
633 
Aggrieved by the direction issued by the High Court to re-imburse A 
the amount together with interest, the Board is in appeal by special leave. 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the 
record. 
It is an admitted case of the parties that the policy of the Government 
of India, which has also been adopted by the Government of Punjab an

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.