Disposed¶29

Surender Kumar v. the State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC9 Jul 2026CWP/10574/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HIMCARE Scheme; cashless treatment; reimbursement of medical expenses; H.P. Swasthary Bima Yojna Society; Chief Executive Officer; coronary stents; PGIMER Chandigarh; non-availability of funds; legal notice 12.12.2025; reply 02.02.2026 admitting admissibility; office instructions 08.07.2026; Rs.2,70,604/-; Rs.1,12,802/-; Rs.1,57,802/-; Surender Kumar v. State of H.P.; CWP No.10574 of 2026; High Court of Himachal Pradesh; Jyotsna Rewal Dua; writ petition disposed of with relief granted.

What did the court decide?

Release to the petitioner of the reimbursement amounts found admissible (Rs.1,12,802/- and Rs.1,57,802/-, totalling Rs.2,70,604/-), as conveyed by office instructions dated 08.07.2026; writ petition disposed of as the relief prayed for stands granted, and pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

Surender Kumar Vs the State of Hp — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent-State would honour its commitments under the HIMCARE Scheme and release to the petitioner the reimbursement of Rs.2,70,604/- (Rs.1,12,802/- and Rs.1,57,802/-) spent by him out of his own finances on implantation of coronary stents at PGIMER, Chandigarh, which respondent No.3 had admitted as admissible but had not released on the stated non-availability of funds.

¶21

Court's answer

Taking note of the office instructions dated 08.07.2026 conveying that the amount found admissible to the petitioner has been ordered to be released in his favour, the present writ petition stands disposed of as the relief prayed for by the petitioner now stands granted to him.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Himachal Pradesh High Court (Shimla), CWP No.10574 of 2026, decided 09.07.2026 (Single Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge) - Surender Kumar v. State of H.P. and others. The petitioner, a card holder and beneficiary under the HIMCARE Scheme of the respondent-State, underwent implantation of Coronary Stents at Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, incurring expenses of Rs.1,12,802/- (28.11.2023 to 29.11.2023) and Rs.1,57,802/- (28.12.2023 to 30.12.2023), totalling Rs.2,70,604/-, which he had to meet from his own finances arranged with great difficulty on account of medical urgency, owing to the respondent-State's failure to honour its cashless-treatment commitments under the policy. His legal notice dated 12.12.2025 to respondent No.3-Chief Executive Officer, H.P. Swasthary Bima Yojna Society drew a reply dated 02.02.2026 admitting admissibility of both amounts, yet the money was not released on the stated non-availability of funds under the HIMCARE Scheme. By interim order dated 06.07.2026 the Court directed the learned Deputy Advocate General to have instructions and that efforts be made to release the amount due by the next date. Pursuant to the assurance recorded in the order dated 07.07.2026, office instructions dated 08.07.2026 were placed on record conveying that the amount found admissible had been ordered to be released in the petitioner's favour. Taking note thereof, the Court disposed of the writ petition as the relief prayed for now stands granted; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.10574 of 2026

¶3

Decided on: 9^th July, 2026

¶4

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Surender Kumar …..Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of H.P. and others .....Respondents

¶7

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶8

Coram

¶9

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶10

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶11

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate.

¶12

For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General with Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

¶13

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶14

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶15

Following order was passed in this matter on

¶16

06.07.2026:-

¶17

“Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶18

2. Petitioner’s case is that he is beneficiary under the HIMCARE Scheme of the respondent-State. He took treatment at Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, wherein expenses of Rs.1,12,802/- for the treatment during the period 28.11.2023 to 29.11.2023 and Rs. 1,57,802/during the period 28.12.2023 to 30.12.2023 and in this manner an amount of Rs.2,70,604/-, was involved for implanting Coronary Stents in him. Petitioner’s grievance is that despite being a card holder and

¶19

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes

¶20

¶21

beneficiary for receiving cashless treatment, on account of failure of the respondent-State, in honoring its commitments under the policy, he was made to spend the above amount from his own finances, which he arranged with great difficulty on account of medical urgency.

¶22

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention to the legal notice dated 12.12.2025 sent by the petitioner to respondent No.3-Chief Executive Officer, H.P. Swasthary Bima Yojna Society. Respondent No.3 in its reply dated 02.02.2026 to the said notice admits admissibility of reimbursement of Rs.1,12,802/- and Rs.1,57,802/- to the petitioner. Evidently, the amount has not been released to the petitioner on the stated non-availability of funds under the HIMCARE Scheme.

¶23

4. Prima facie, in view of state’s commitment under the HIMCARE Scheme and the liability towards the petitioner admitted by it, learned Deputy Advocate General to have instructions in the matter.

¶24

Efforts be made to release the amount due to the petitioner by the next date of hearing.

¶25

List on 07.07.2026.”

¶26

2. Pursuant to the assurance as recorded in the

¶27

order dated 07.07.2026, learned Deputy Advocate General

¶28

has now placed on record office instructions dated 08.07.2026, conveying that the amount found admissible to the petitioner has now been ordered to be released in his favour.

¶29

Taking note of the office instructions, the present writ petition to stand disposed of as the relief prayed for by the petitioner now stands granted to him.

¶30

¶31

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand

¶32

disposed of.

¶33

Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 09, 2026 Judge Mukesh

Surender Kumar v. the State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surender Kumar v. the State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajinder Singh Vs Amit Kashyap and Another

Dharam Pal Koundal Vs the State of Hp and Others

Om Singh Vs State of Hp

Bhupender Gupta Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Ors.

Kali Ram Vs Hptdcl and Others

The Talai Gram Sewa Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs Vandna Devi and Others