STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus MOHINDER SINGH CHAWLA ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 279 · Decided: 17-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

-, 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
MO HINDER SINGH CHAWLA ETC. 
DECEMBER 17, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 21. 
Right to life-Held right to health is an integral to right to life-Govern-
ment servant-Constitutional obligation of Government to provide health C 
services and bear the expenses for Government servant during service and after 
retirement. 
I 
Service Law-State of Punjab-povernment employee-Medical expen-
diture-Reimbursement-Employee having heart ailment-Facility of treat- D 
ment not available in State Hospitals-l'ennission granted to get specialised 
treatment outside the State-Treatment taken at Al/MS-Claim for reimbur-
sement by employee-Claim for actual room rent paid rejected as per Govern~ 
ment policy decision-Writ by employee-Direction by High Court to 
reimburse room rent paid by employee-Appeal by State-Held the expenses E 
incu"ed towards room rent for stay in the hospital as an inpatient are an 
integral part of the expenses incu"ed for the treatment-Expenditure, thus, 
incu"ed requires to be reimbursed by the state to the employee-High Court 
was right in giving direction for reimbursement of expenses towards room rent. 
Service Law-State of Punjab-Government employee-Suffering F 
coronary ailment--Refe"ed to Escorts Hearts Institute for urgent treat-
ment-Ex post facto sanction for treatment-with one attendant 
granted-Claim for room rent paid in the Hospital for the period of 
stay-<Jovernment stand that reimbursement could only be allowed as per 
rates charged by A.l.l.M.S. .and not the actual expenses incurred by 
patient-Held the Government is required to reimburse the expenditure in- G 
cumd for the period during which fhe patient stayed in the approved hospital 
for treatment-it is incongruous that while the patiel!t is admitted to undergo 
treatment and he is refused the reimbursement of the actual expenditure 
incun·ed towards room rent and is given the expenditure of the room rel!t 
chargeable in another institute whereat he had not actually undergone. 
H 
279 
280 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS(1996) SUPP.10 S.C.R. 
A 
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 16979 of 
1996 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.8.96 of the Punjab & Haryana 
High Court in C.W.P. No. 15942 of 1995. 
B 
D.V. Sehga~ H.S. Munjral, Manoj Swarup, M.K. Dua, Ms. Monika 
Gusain, P.N. Aggarwal, S. Bagga, A. Sharan and A.P. Singh for the 
appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
C In C4 No. 16979 I 96 @ SLP (C) No. 12472/96: 
Leave granted. 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of 
the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, made on August 
D 8, 1996 in CWP No. 15942/95. 
The respondent had heart ailment which required replacement of 
two valves in the heart. Since the facility of the treatment was not available 
in the State Hospitals· of Punjab, permission was given by the Director, with 
E the approval of the Medical Board, to get the treatment outside the State. 
The respondent was sent for and had treatment in the AIIMS at New 
Delhi. The respondent submitted his medical bill on September 21, 1994 
for reimbursement. While granting reimbursement for the Actual expenses 
incurred in the sum of Rs. 1,29,000, the appellants rejected his bill for room 
rent paid to the hospital as inadmissible. The respondent filed writ petition 
F stating that when he had undergone the treatment in the hospital as an 
inpatient, the payment of the room rent is an integral part of the expenses 
for treatment and, therefore, he is entitled to the reimbursement of the 
room rent pai& The Division Bench directed payment of the said amount. 
Thus, this appeal by special leave. 
G 
It is contended for the appellants-State that the Government have 
taken decision, as a policy in the Resolution dated January 25, 1991 made 
in Letter No. 7n!85/5HBV/2498, that the reimbursement of expenses on 
account of diet, stay of attendant and stay of patient in hotel/hospital will 
not be allowed. Permission given was subject to the above resolution and, 
H therefore, the High Court was not right in directing the Government to 
.
_, 
STATE v. M.S. CHAWLA 
281 
bear the expenses for the stay fu the hotel/hospital contrary to para (vii) A 
of the Resolution of the Government. We find no force fu the contention. 
It is an admitted position that when specialised treatment was not available 
in the Hospitals maintained by th

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