Right to medical reimbursement linked to right to life: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Making it clear that the right to medical reimbursement is “directly linked to the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that such a claim cannot be rejected on specious ground of marginal delay.

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu asserted that the entitlement to reimbursement for medical expenses incurred by government employees could not be sacrificed at the altar of technicalities when the delay was not inordinate and a genuine reason existed.

The ruling came on a senior citizen’s petition filed after his plea for medical reimbursement was rejected merely on the ground of delay by the Jind District Elementary Education Officer in May 2013 and the Julana Block Education Officer in June the same year.

“The claim for medical reimbursement, which is otherwise due to the petitioner, cannot be denied merely on specious ground of marginal delay since such right is directly linked to the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” Chief Justice Nagu observed.

The Bench was told that the petitioner retired from service and remained admitted for neurosurgery between September 19 and 24, 2011. The reimbursement claim was submitted on May 7, 2013, after a delay attributed to the petitioner’s mental health conditions. The claim of Rs 1,52,364, was rejected on the grounds that it was time-barred and the treatment was taken as an outpatient.

The State, in its written statement, referred to executive instructions dated December 11, 2003, which explicitly permitted consideration of delayed claims. Referring to the instructions, the court asserted even claims submitted after a year could be considered by the competent authority. It was rather empowered to condone any delay in submitting a medical claim.

“A bare perusal of the instructions reveals that even those claims, which are submitted after 12 months, can be considered by the Health Department at the level of the Secretary of Administrative Department. The present claim for reimbursement was submitted after about one year by the petitioner,” the Bench added.

Before parting with the order, the Bench quashed the impugned orders passed by the District

Elementary Education Officer and the Block Education Officer before directing the forwarding of the petitioner’s claim, along with all documents “put up in the year 2013” before the Secretary concerned. He was, in turn, directed to consider the claim before passing a speaking order within 60 days.

“It is needless to emphasise that if the claim is found to be genuine, the due amount of reimbursement shall be paid to the petitioner within 30 days, failing which the due amount shall carry interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum for the period thereafter,” the Chief Justice concluded.