- (1.) In the present writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to grant the actual medical re-imbursement expenses that the petition had incurred on his medical treatment.
(2.) The petitioner, who was working on the post of Stenotypist in the Office of District & Sessions Judge, Patiala, retired on 5.11.1988 upon attaining the age of super-annuation. It is contended that he suffered from Coronary Artery Disease and upon consultation with Doctors at the Fortis Hospital, Mohali, he had undergone a bye-pass graft surgery for which he remained admitted in the hospital from 8.5.2010 to 17.5.2010. Suffice it to notice that the petitioner submitted a claim as regards his actual medical expenses incurred to the extent of '2,30,069/-. Such claim has been processed and the petitioner has been granted medical re-imbursement expenses to the extent of '1,07,330/-. The limited grievance in the present petition is as regards denial of the actual medical expenses incurred by the petitioner.
(3.) Neither in the pleadings nor at the time of arguments, any policy/instructions was brought to the notice of this Court whereby the petitioner could substantiate his claim in relation to the actual medical expenses incurred towards this treatment. It is, undoubtedly, a settled position of law that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all necessities of life and in this regard, it shall be the duty of the State to even provide benefit in relation to medical assistance. However, such a right is not absolute. Such an issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga, 1998 1 SCT 716 and it had been held in the following terms: "Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in the Writ petition filed, the respondent did not specifically challenge the new policy of 1995. If that was done the State would have placed all such material in detail to show the financial strain. We having considered the submission of both the parties, on the aforesaid facts and circumstances, hold that the appellant's decision to exclude the designated hospital cannot be said to be such as to be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. No right could be absolute in a welfare State. A man is a social animal. He cannot live without the cooperation of large number of persons. Every article one uses is the contribution of many. Hence every individual right has to give way to the right of public at large. Not every fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution is not absolute and it is to be within permissible reasonable restriction. This principle equally applies when there is any constraint on the health budget on account of financial stringencies. But we do hope that government will give due consideration and priority to the health budget in future and render what is best possible. For the aforesaid reasons and findings we uphold government's new policy dated 13th February, 1995 and further hold it not to be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 13167/97 and 12418/97, the surgery at Escorts was after the introduction of the new policy and therefore the extent of medical reimbursement can be only according to the rates prescribed by AIIMS. However, the respondents therein are not entitled to the full expenditure that was incurred at Escorts. We therefore, allow the appeals in part and direct that the respondents are entitled to reimburse only at AIIMS rate. The appellant will therefore reimburse the respondents to the extent within one month from today.";