SURJIT SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1095 · Decided: 31-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

" 
SURJIT SINGH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
JANUARY 31, 1996 
[MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of illdia, 1950: Article 21 
Right to life-Held self preservation is 11ecessa1y concomitant of 1ight 
w~ 
C 
Service Law : 
Medical reimbw>ement-State of Punjab-Reimbursement policy--
Recognition of p1ivate identified hospitals for treatment-Employee-Visit to 
England on leave-Hea1t problenr-{Jndergoing bye-pass surgery to save him-
D 
self without submitting himself for medical examination as per policy-Gaim 
for reimbursement-State making payment as per rates prevalent in All India 
fllstitute of Medical Scimces-Employee's hypothetical claim for reimburse-
ment on the basis of rates prevalent in Escorts-Held pem1issible as right to 
self preservation is part of right to life. 
The State of Punjab in its policy regarding reimbursement of medi-
cal expenses to its employees recognised certain identified private hospi-
E 
tals including Escorts Heart Institute, New Delhi for treatment of certain 
diseases including open heart surgery. The appellant, a Deputy Superin-
tendent of Police in Punjab, during his visit to England, while on leave, fell 
F 
ill due to his heart problem and to save himself is said to have undergone 
a bye-pass surgery in Humana Hospital, Wellington London. On his return 
to India he claimed reimbursement for Rs. 3 lacs spent on bis medical 
treatment which was refused as the Department was of the opinion that 
his case was not that of an emergency but a planned visit to England to· 
have himself medically treated without submitting _himself for medical G 
examination as required under the policy. The appellant filed a writ 
petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. No documentary 
evidence was tendered to show that his was a case of emergency requiring 
instant operation and treatment. However, the State paid to the appellant 
the expenses incurred by him on the rates prevalent in the all India H 
1095 
1096 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) i.e. Rs. 30,000 for bye-pass surgery 
and Rs. 10,000 for Angiography. The High Court disposed the petition 
accordingly. 
B 
c 
The appellant _preferred appeal before this Court claiming payment 
on the basis of rates prevalent in the Escorts Heart Institute in place of 
that of AIIMS contending that he may be considered to have been treated 
in the Escorts, more so, when he is being treated to have been operated 
upon in AIIMS without actually having been so and had a choice to go 
either to the AIIMS or Escorts or Christian Medical College, Ludhiana or 
Appollo Hospital, Madras. 
On the question whether the hypothetical claim of the appellant for 
medical reimbursement was valid : 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
D 
HELD : 1. hypothetical claim of the appellant for medical reimbur-
sement is valid. In the circumstances of the case he cannot be said to be 
far too wrong in choosing Escorts amongst the three recognised hospitals 
for open heart surgery. As he has brought down his claim to the rates 
prevalent in the Escorts in place of that of AIIMS further reference to 
emergency treatment etc. would not be necessary. It would hypothetically 
E have to be assumed that the appellant was in India, had not subjected 
himself to Medical Board Examination, and had gone on his own to 
Escorts and got himself operated upon for bye-pass surgery. 
F 
2. Self preservation of one's life is the necessary concomitant of the 
right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, fundamen-
tal in nature, sacred precious and inviolable. The importance and validity 
of the duty and right to self-preservation has a species in the right of self 
defence in criminal law, Centuries ago thinkers of this Great Land con-
ceived of such right and recognised it. 
G 
Ga1Uda Purana Chapter 16, Verses 17, 18, 20 and 22, referred to. 
3. The appellant therefore had the right to take steps in self preser-
vation. He did not have to stand in queue before the Medical Board, the 
manning and assembling of which, bare-facedly, makes its meetings dif-
ficult to happen. The appellant also did not have to stand in queue in the 
H government hospital of AIIMS and could go elsewhere to an alternate 
J 
• 
v 
SURJITSINGHv. STATE 
1097 
hospital as per policy. When the State itself has brought Escorts on the A 
recognised list, it is futile for it to contend that the appellant could in no · 
event 

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