Satyendra Kumar Sinha Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of t h e Constitutio n of India with a prayer for is s uance of a writ in the nature o f certiorari f or quashing the impugned or d er dated 01.06.2017 (Annexu r e P-5) passe d by respondent No.2, whereby medical reimbursement claim o f petitioner h as been declined. Further for i s suance of a writ in the nature o f mandamus directing the respondents to r eimburse the medical claim o f Rs.5,66,35 0 .51 along with interest up to da t e as per Rules. 2. Learned counsel for the petiti o ner inter alia contends that wi f e of the peti t ioner fell seriously ill on 15.0 8 .2015 and at that point of tim e ,

¶17

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.03 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

2

¶19

CWP-2034 7 -2017(O&M)

¶20

petitioner w as out of station, due to whic h son of petitioner got his moth e r admitted in Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute, R ohni, New Delhi on 16.08.201 5 . At the tim e of admission of wife of peti t ioner in hospital, an amount o f Rs.2,00,00 0 /- was required to be deposit e d as admission fees. In such a situation, s o n of the petitioner who was employed in a private compa n y sought hel p of his employer and the comp a ny directly deposited amount t o the tune o f Rs.2,00,000/- to the conc e rned hospital to facilitate t h e admission. The wife of petitioner remai n ed admitted in hospital w.e.f. 16.08.2015 to 14.09.2015 and received treatment for chondrosarco m a n (Cancer). T he petitioner incurred a total e xpenditure of Rs.7,66,350.51 o the treatme n t of his wife and out of this a m ount, Rs.2,00,000/- was alrea d y r deposited b y the employer of son of pe t itioner. As such, the petition e submitted t h e claim for the remaining am o unt of Rs.5,66,350.51 vide lett e r dated 01.1 0 .2015. Petitioner has not only f u rnished the medical bills but h a s also submi t ted the requisite certificate issued by the cancer institute vi d e Annexure P -1(collectively). Thereafter, re s pondent No.2 raised an objecti o n and sought clarification on the ground if t h e claim for the treatment of wi f e of petition e r has been taken by his so n how the petitioner can clai m reimburse m ent from the respondent-Corp o ration. Petitioner in response t o the objecti o n raised filed a detailed reply dated 27.07.2016 by explaini n g each and e v ery aspect and also clarified t hat the amount of Rs.2,00,000 / - was availe d by son of the petitioner in ord e r to preserve the life his moth e r who was i n dire need of medical assi s tance and it was the case o f

¶21

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.03 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

3

¶23

CWP-2034 7 -2017(O&M)

¶24

emergency. Unfortunately the wife of peti t ioner succumbed to cancer on l y after a mo n th from the date of discharge. H e further submits that wife of t h e petitioner w as residing with the petitioner and totally dependent upon hi m . Learned co u nsel further refers to written s t atement filed by the responden t - Corporatio n and submits that claim of the p etitioner has been declined on l y on the gro u nd that wife of petitioner canno t be considered dependant, as s h e fails to f a ll under the definition of d e pendent by relying upon t h e instruction s (Annexure R-1). 3. Learned counsel appearing o n behalf of the respondents h a s filed the copy of affidavit Sh. Salim Moha m mad along with Annexure R- 4 , which is or d ered to be taken on record. Re g istry is directed to place the sa m e at the appr o priate place.

¶25

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporati o n submits th a t petitioner has taken the be n efit of the Corporate Covera g e Scheme from the private company through his son and cannot be allowed t o claim reim b ursement and prays for dismiss a l of the present petition.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused t h e record with their able assistance. 6. It transpires that the claim o f the petitioner was rejected b y relying upo n the instructions dated 06.08.2 0 14 (Annexure R-1). A perusal o f the same w ould indicate that Government of Punjab has issued instructio n s regarding e xtension of increasing of inc o me condition for dependents o f

¶27

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.03 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

4

¶29

CWP-2034 7 -2017(O&M)

¶30

family for m edical reimbursement to emp l oyees/officers and pensioners o f Punjab Go v ernment, which may be read as under:-

¶31

2&.. <Keeping in view the demand of different associati o n and public intent in mind the G ovt. has decided in the meeti n g of standing Committee, thereo f , a member of family who is n o t an income tax payee, be treated as dependent for purpose o f medical reimbursement but i f such member has got medic a l reimbursed or claimed medi c al claim from somewhere els e , then he will not be treated as d ependent.=.

¶32

There is no dispute that the w i fe of petitioner was a depende n t on petitio n er at the time of her treat m ent at the concerned hospit a l. Admittedly , a total expenditure incurred on the wife of petitioner w a s Rs.7,66,35 0 .51 out of which an amount of R s.2,00,000/- have been arrang e d by son of p etitioner from his employer in order to preserve the life of h i s mother in a n emergency situation. The afo r ementioned amount was requir e d to be dep o sited at the time of admissi o n in hospital. The amount o f Rs.2,00,00 0 /- which got deposited by the s o n9s employer, is not included i n the claim of Rs.5,66,350.51 submitted by t he petitioner. As such, objecti o n raised by r e spondent-Corporation is too h y per-technical and cannot be us e d to deny the admissible claim of the petition e r.

¶33

The condition of the wife of the petitioner was serious and it was the ca s e of emergency. It is not the case of the respondents that t h e claim of th e husband of petitioner is not su p ported by the hospital record. I n such cases, the test of essentiality and e m ergency comes into play, whi c h

¶34

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.03 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

5

¶36

CWP-2034 7 -2017(O&M)

¶37

dictates th a t if the medical procedure was undergone by the claimant in a n emergency, on the advice of a doctor based on medical record, t h e reimburse m ent for the same must be mad e . Not only is the preservation o f human lif e instinctive, but it also for m s a part of Article 21 of t h e Constitutio n of India, and therefore, it shall always retain the highe s t priority.

¶38

Moreover, the State bears an obligation to ensure t h e availability of timely medical care to those i n need. As such, it cannot expe c t the citizens to refrain from availing timely care. Such conduct on the part o f the State d oes not satisfy the criteria of fairness and reasonableness a n d therefore, a mounts to a violation of the fundamental rights enshrined i n Article 21 o f the Constitution of India. Rel i ance in this regard can be plac e d on the jud g ments rendered by a two Judg e bench of the Hon9ble Supre m e Court in Surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and others(1996) 2 SCC 336, where b y, speaking through Justice M .M. Punchhi, the following w a s opined:

¶39

<8. T he policy, providing recognit i on for treatment of open hea r t surg e ry in the Escorts, specifically c a me to be examined by a Divisi o n Benc h of the Punjab and Haryan a High Court at Chandigarh i n C.W. P . No. 13493 of 1992 titled as S adhu R. Pall v. State of Punj a b thro u gh Secretary, Health and F amily Welfare Punjab, Civil Secr e tariat, Chandigarh and others, 1994(1) SCT 5 5 2 (P& H ). decided on 6.10.1993, whe r ein the claim of the then w r it petit i oner to medical reimbursemen t was accepted when in order t o save his life he had got himself oper a ted upon in the Escorts, and t h e

¶40

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.03 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶41

6

¶42

CWP-2034 7 -2017(O&M)

¶43

plea o f the State that he could be pai d rates as prevalent in the AII M S was r ejected. Special Leave Petitio n No. 22024 of 1995 against t h e said decision was dismissed by th i s Court on 2.2.1994. The oth e r judg m ents of the High Court followi n g the decision in Sadhu R. Pall's case are :

¶44

(1) C.W.P. No. 18562 of 19 9 2 decided on 10.5.95 titled K. L . Kohli v. State of Punjab and o t hers, 1995(4) SCT 280 (P&H); (2) C.W.P. No. 260 of 1995, d ecided on 30.5.1995 titled Ra v i Mohan Duggal v. State of Pun j ab and others (DB) (3) C.W.P. No. 5669 of 1 9 94 decided on 4.9.94 titl e d Prem Singh Gill v. State of Pu n jab and others; (4) 1995(4) SCT 816 (P&H) : 1995 (III) Punjab Law Repo r t 529 titled Tarlok Chander v. S t ate of Punjab etc. (SB); and r (5) 1996(2) SCT 148 (P&H) : 1995 (III), Punjab Law Report e 682 titled Mrs. Surya Pandit v. State of Punjab and others (SB ) xxx xx x xxx

¶45

10. I t is otherwise important to bear in mind that self preservation o f one's life is the necessary concomita n t of the right to life enshrined i n Article 21 of the Constitution of Indi a , fundamental in nature, sacre d , prec i ous and inviolable. The import a nce and validity of the duty a n d right to self-preservation has a species in the right of self defence i n crim i nal law&

¶46

11. T he appellant therefore had t he right to take steps in self pres e rvation. He did not have to st a nd in queue before the Medic a l Boar d , the manning and assembling of which, bare-facedly, makes i t s meet i ngs difficult to happen. The ap p ellant also did not have to sta n d in queue in the Government hospital of AIIMS and could go elsewhe r e to a n alternate hospital as per p o licy. When the State itself h a s brou g ht the Escorts on the recognis e d list, it is futile for it to conte n d that t he appellant could in no event have gone to the Escorts and h i s

¶47

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.03 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶48

7

¶49

CWP-2034 7 -2017(O&M)

¶50

clai m cannot on that basis be allo w ed, on suppositions. We think t o the c o ntrary&=

¶51

It is not a case that the clai m of the petitioner was not bas e d upon the m edical record. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. T h e respondent s are directed to make payment o f medical reimbursement for t h e medical p r ocedure undergone by wife of petitioner to the tune o f Rs.5,66,35 0 /- along with 6% interest to be calculated from the date of fili n g the present writ petition, within a period o f three months from the date o f receiving a certified copy of this order.

¶52

Pending miscellaneous applic a tion(s), if any, shall also stan d s disposed o f .

¶53

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE October 08, 2025 P.C Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No

¶54

PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.11.03 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Satyendra Kumar Sinha v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyendra Kumar Sinha v. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Singh Vs Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (Dhbvn) and Others

Inderjit Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Veera Devi Vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Uhbvnl and Others

Prem Pal Singh Mann Vs Hy.St. Coop Apex Bank Ltd.

Surinder Singh Vs P.R.T.C. and Anr.

Pankaj Kumar Vs Punjab State Power Corp Limited and Another