Medical treatment an integral part of right to life: HC; flags hyper-technical rejections, directs CRPF to reimburse claims

Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court has ruled that medical reimbursement to a govt employee cannot be denied on hyper-technical grounds merely because treatment was taken in a non-empanelled hospital or without prior permission, particularly in emergencies.Justice Sandeep Moudgil passed the orders while allowing a petition filed by CRPF personnel Balhar Singh. The court directed the CRPF to reimburse medical expenses for Singh and his wife after their claims were rejected on technical grounds during the Covid-19 pandemic. Justice Moudgil further urged the CRPF to adopt a pragmatic approach to emergency claims to prevent future hardship.
The court said that under Article 21 of the Constitution, access to medical treatment is an integral part of the right to life. Denying reimbursement in life-threatening situations obstructs this right. The court also found a violation of Article 14, stating that the rigid application of procedural rules during a pandemic constitutes arbitrary and unequal treatment. Singh, stationed at the Pinjore Group Centre, suffered a heart attack in May 2020. While he began treatment at an empanelled CGHS hospital in Chandigarh, limited facility availability during the lockdown forced him to seek further cardiac care at a private centre. The CRPF rejected Singh's claim of around Rs 1.48 lakh, citing the Medical Attendance Rules of 1944 and classifying the treatment as day-care rather than OPD. A similar claim of over Rs 1.21 lakh for his wife's cardiac treatment was denied due to a lack of referral slips and non-availability certificates. The court observed that the authorities adopted a "hyper-technical and mechanical approach" while ignoring the extraordinary circumstances prevailing during the pandemic. "The medical records establish that both the petitioner and his wife faced urgent cardiac emergencies, making the treatment unavoidable. The repeated rejection of the petitioner and his wife's medical reimbursement claims during the Covid-19 pandemic amounts to a clear violation of constitutional rights," the court held. The court also highlighted that under Article 47, the state has a duty to ensure healthcare access. Consequently, the court directed the CRPF to waive procedural deficiencies and release the admissible funds without delay. MSID:: 127772963 413 |