Sudarshan Pal v. State Of Haryana And Others
!
"
# " "
" $ "
$ &
''()''* +
,
- /
-
''00"12 "'1(((
"45'50)2
-
"4 -
"45'50)2
2
'
- !
-
-
- +
- 7
8
!
9 - :4 "" '4"* 4' "' '4"*
₹''00"1)2
9
-- !
%
&- -
- ₹ - "'1((()2
₹
"45'50)2
!
$
& 9
&
:
;
$
"054
-& !
'4"* < =
> - !?
-
!
7
9
$ - <&
-
! " # $ % % $ & ' # $ (( &
-
.
&
- &
! !-
%&'()*+,+-('.'/0,%1'%-2 -)-'
;
&- < 7
8
-
-
-
-&
+@ % &$
-
!
<
%
+
- 4( 41 '441
'4 41 '44A
₹ "'1((()2
-
!
#
( ;
> - !?
& &-
=
* )
- 7
8
-
!
%
9 !
.
3 -
-- -
- &!
&
!
&$
- 7
8
-
& -
!
-
&
-
2
-
'"
- &
2- -
+ > * # + ,-. /"0 2
- &
& + & "The right to medical claim cannot be denied merely because the name of the hospital is not included in the Government Order. The real test must be the factum of treatment. Before any medical claim is honoured, the authorities are bound to ensure as to whether the claimant had actually taken treatment and the factum of treatment is supported by records duly certified by Doctors/Hospitals concerned. Once, it is established, the claim cannot be denied on technical grounds. Clearly, in the present case, by taking a very inhuman approach, the officials of the CGHS have denied the grant of medical reimbursement in full to the petitioner forcing him to approach this Court.
15. In the present view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the CGHS is responsible for taking care of healthcare needs and well being of the central government employees and
pensioners. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of opinion that the treatment of the petitioner in non(empanelled hospital was genuine because there was no option left with him at the relevant time. We, therefore, direct the respondent(State to pay the balance amount of L 4,99,555/( to the writ petitioner". "4
&
&
-
- <
!
- !
!
&
-
&$ !
-
"It is now settled law that right to health is an integral to right to life. Government has constitutional obligation to provide the health facilities. If the Government servant has suffered an ailment which requires treatment at a specialised approved hospital and on reference whereat the Government servant had undergone such treatment therein, it is but the duty of the State to bear the expenditure incurred by the Government servant. Expenditure, thus, incurred requires to be reimbursed by the State to the employee. The High Court was, therefore, right in giving direction to reimburse the expenses incurred towards room rent by the respondent during his stay in the hospital as an inpatient."
"#$% &'$( )"% * +
! "
9. The Constitution envisages the establishment of a welfare state at the federal level as well as at the state level. In a welfare state the primary duty of the Government is to secure the welfare of the people. Providing adequate medical facilities for the people is an essential part of the obligations undertaken by the Government in a welfare state. The Government discharges this obligation by running hospitals and health centres which provide medical care to the persons seeking to avail those facilities. Article 21 imposes an obligation on the State to safeguard the right to life of every person. Preservation of human life is thus of paramount importance. # $ ,$-"&"(.
/( 0
12*+3!
"6. The facility of medical reimbursement to an employee is a valuable right which the employer offers to its employees. The inhibitive interpretation of such a beneficial policy which has the effect of defeating it altogether can never be accepted.
7. A person who has been afflicted with a threateningly terminal ailment, is likely to incur the expenditure of his treatment and to say that the Fixed Medical Scheme is just sufficient for him to meet such expenses, is only defeatist in character.
"5 $ -
-
&
=
- & !2
- '"
&
&
"1
+@ )++
B & ! +@
++
- - =
.C !
&
+ - .
-
"( + -
2
-
-
+@
'"
-
-
- &!
& -
%= !
.
-
& -
!
&$
!
"* +
&
&
"45'50)
(6 -
9
-
!
"A
- 4 "
sham Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No