Punjab and Haryana High Court affirms right of patients to choose hospitals for urgent medical treatment
Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, June 20
In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the right of patients to seek urgent medical treatment at any multi-specialty hospital or healthcare institution of their choice to alleviate pain and preserve life. The court ruled that patients requiring immediate medical attention are not obligated to exclusively seek treatment at government-approved hospitals to qualify for reimbursement.
Court’s observation
Whenever a patient is having a problem, which needs immediate and urgent medical attention to get relief from the pain or to save life, first of all he would not see that he has to approach a government hospital/approved hospital so as to satisfy the conditions. — Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Emphasising the paramountcy of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri added a patient’s primary concern was immediate relief from pain and preservation of life during medical emergencies. It might necessitate seeking care at the nearest or most suitable facility, regardless of its approval status by governmental bodies.
The ruling came on a petition filed against Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and other respondents by employee Krishan Lal. He was seeking reimbursement of medical bills rejected vide a memo dated May 21, 2021.
Justice Puri’s Bench was told that the petitioner’s wife was having knee problem following screw breakage within the knee. The implant had to be surgically removed. The discharge summary suggested walking aggravated the pain and “symptoms had increased since last one month”
The respondents’ stand, on the other hand, was that the Nigam’s senior consultant was of the opinion that it was elective surgery. The discharge summary suggested the petitioner’s wife was suffering from last one year. As such, it was not a case of any emergency.
Justice Puri asserted: “Whenever a patient is having a problem, which needs immediate and urgent medical attention to get relief from the pain or to save life, first of all he would not see that he has to approach a government hospital/approved hospital so as to satisfy the conditions of some instructions issued by the respondent-Nigam.”
Justice Puri added a patient was not expected to go and look at the list of the approved hospitals to get reimbursement in future. “The plea of the respondents is an antithesis of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India”.
Referring to the discharge summary, Justice Puri asserted the petitioner’s wife was having a problem for last about one year. But it got aggravated and symptoms worsened over the past month. As such, it could not be said that it was a case of an elective surgery.
“A patient who is having pain and also inflammation due to breakage of screw in the knee and wants to get the same to be immediately removed and get relief, it cannot be said to be an elective surgery but it is a compulsive surgery for getting relief, Justice Puri asserted, while directing reimbursement of bills.
