In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court addressed the issue of medical reimbursement for a retired central government employee who underwent a heart transplant at a private hospital. The case highlighted the intersection of administrative procedures, human rights, and the right to life and health, as enshrined in the Constitution of India.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Anirudh Nansi, a former Assistant Commissioner in the Central Excise and Customs Department, retired voluntarily in March 2008. He had been suffering from Cardiomyopathy since 2009, a condition that progressively weakened his heart. By October 2019, his Left Ventricle Ejection Fraction (LVEF), a critical measure of heart function, had deteriorated to 12–15%, prompting his medical team to recommend an urgent heart transplant.
Despite the severity of his condition, Nansi faced a significant hurdle: none of the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS)-empanelled hospitals had the requisite facilities or capacity to perform a heart transplant at that time. Faced with the prospect of waiting indefinitely for a donor organ and the unavailability of timely treatment, Nansi opted to undergo the surgery at a private hospital, where both the medical facilities and the organ were available promptly.
Post-surgery, Nansi submitted a reimbursement claim to the government for the expenses incurred, amounting to approximately ₹22 lakh. However, the authorities approved a reimbursement of only ₹69,000, citing the policy that restricts reimbursement to treatments conducted in empanelled hospitals. This decision led Nansi to approach the Bombay High Court, challenging the denial of full reimbursement.
Court's Analysis and Judgment
The division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna examined the case in detail, focusing on the constitutional implications of the government's decision. The court emphasized that the right to health is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. It noted that denying full reimbursement in a life-threatening situation, where the petitioner had no alternative but to seek treatment at a private facility, amounted to a violation of his fundamental rights.
The bench observed that the government had not demonstrated that any empanelled hospital had the necessary facilities or capacity to perform the heart transplant at the time of the emergency. The absence of such facilities in government hospitals rendered the petitioner's decision to seek treatment elsewhere both reasonable and necessary.
The court further highlighted that the petitioner had not acted out of personal preference but out of a dire need to save his life. In such circumstances, the court held that the government could not penalize the petitioner for choosing a private hospital when public facilities were unavailable.
Justice Kulkarni remarked that the government's stance was not only legally untenable but also ethically questionable. He noted that public servants, especially those who have dedicated their careers to serving the nation, should not be subjected to financial hardships when seeking medical treatment, particularly in emergencies.
The bench also pointed out that the reimbursement policy should not be applied rigidly without considering the human aspect. The court emphasized that the policy's intent was to provide healthcare benefits to employees and retirees, not to create obstacles in accessing life-saving treatments.
Implications of the Ruling
This judgment sets a precedent in the realm of administrative law and human rights. It underscores the necessity for government policies to be flexible and responsive to the realities faced by individuals, particularly in matters concerning health and life. The court's decision serves as a reminder that bureaucratic procedures should not override the fundamental rights of citizens, especially when their health and well-being are at stake.
The ruling also calls attention to the limitations of the CGHS and the need for a more robust healthcare infrastructure within government facilities. It suggests that the government should periodically assess the capabilities of empanelled hospitals to ensure they can meet the diverse medical needs of employees and retirees.
Furthermore, the judgment highlights the importance of compassion and empathy in administrative decision-making. It encourages authorities to consider the human element and the urgency of medical situations when evaluating reimbursement claims.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court's decision in this case is a testament to the judiciary's role in safeguarding fundamental rights and ensuring that administrative policies align with constitutional principles. By directing the government to reimburse the full amount incurred by Anirudh Nansi for his heart transplant, the court has reinforced the notion that the right to health is paramount and must be protected against arbitrary and rigid policy interpretations.
This case serves as a critical reference point for future disputes involving medical reimbursements and the application of government policies. It advocates for a balanced approach that harmonizes administrative procedures with the fundamental rights of individuals, ensuring that justice prevails in matters of life and health.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.