STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus RAM LUBHAYA BAGGA

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1120 · Decided: 26-02-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
v. 
RAM LUBHAYA BAGGA 
FEBRUARY 26, 1998 
B 
[S.B. MAJMUDAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.] 
Administrative Law : 
Administrative action-Policy-Change of-State Government changed 
C its policy as regards reimbursement of medical expenses-Validity of-Held 
: Right of the State to change its policy from time to time under the changing 
circumstances cannot be challenged-In the circumstances of the case, change 
of policy upheld. 
Judicial review-Policy Scrunity of-Held: Policy cannot be scrutinised 
D though the court can determine whether it is arbitrary or violative of any 
constitutional, statutory or any other provision of law. 
Po/icy-Framing of-Financial constraint;;-Held: Essential 
consideration for forming or modifj;ing a policy. 
E 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Articles 21, 41 and 47-Right to health-State G_overnment restricted 
reimbursement of medical expenses to its employees-Validity of-Held: It is 
the obligation of the State to secure the health of its citizens-But Government 
F is justified in restricting the medical facilities to the extent its fina'lces 
permit-Hence, decision of State Government not violative of Art. 21. 
Articles 21 and 47-Right to health-Obligation of the State to 
streamline its health services emphasised. 
Part ///-Fundamental rights-Held: Not every fundamental right is 
G absolute-Every individual right has to give way to the right of the public 
at large. 
Jurisprudence-Jura! Relations-Right-Duty correlative-Held: Right 
of one is an obligation of the another. 
H 
The respondent suffered a heart attack and was admitted to the 
1120 
STATE v. R.L. BAGGA 
1121 
Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre for treatment The respondent A 
submitted a bill to the appellant-State for full reimbursement of his medical 
expenses. The appellant-State allowed the respondent's claim in part on the 
ground that as per the new policy framed in 1995, reimbursement of medical 
expenses was restricted to the level of expenditure as per the rate fixed by 
the Director, Health and Family Welfare for a similar treatment package or B 
actual expenditure whichever was less. 
Being aggrieved the respondent filed a writ petition before the 
High Court The High Court allowed the petition and held that the respondent 
was entitled to total reimbursement of his medical expenses incurred in a 
private hospital. Hence this appeal. 
C 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that according to the 
1991 policy reimbursement of full medical expenses charged by certain 
designated private hospitals like, Escorts, Apollo etc. were admissible and, 
therefore, the new policy denying full reimbursement of medical expenses 
incurred in a private hospital was not justified; that this Court in Surjit D 
;.. 
Singh 's case had upheld reimbursement of medical expenses at Escorts and, 
therefore, it was not permissible for the appellant-State to change its policy; 
and that the new policy; of the appellant framed in 1995 was violative of 
Article 21 of the Constitution. 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The right of the State to change its policy from time to time, 
under the changing circumstances is neither challenged nor could it be. 
[1133-CJ 
E 
2. It is not normally within the domain of any court, to weigh the pros 
and cons of the policy or to scrutinise it and test the degree of it is beneficial F 
or equitable disposition for the purpose of varying, modifying or annulling 
it, based on howsoever sound and good reasoning, except where it is arbitrary 
or violative of any constitutional, statutory or any other provision of law-
When Government forms its policy, it is based on a number of circumstances 
on facts, law including constraints based on its resources. It is also based G 
on expert opinion. It would be dangerous if court is asked to test the utility, 
beneficial effect of the policy or its appraisal based on facts s.et out on 
affidavits. The court would dissuade itself from entering into this realm 
which belongs to the executive. It is within this matrix that it is to be seen 
whether the new policy violates Article 21 when it restricts reimbursement 
on account of its financial constraints. [1134-A-C] 
H 
1122 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
3. Right of on~person correlates to a duty upon another, indh·idual, 
employer, Gonmment or authority. The right of one is an obligation of 
another. Hence the right of a citizen to lh·e under 

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