IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 219 CWP-19487-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.08.2026 DOLLY JAIN AND ORS ... Petitioners Versus UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM AND ORS ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : Mr. Sunil Goswami, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Advocate and Ms. Mehak Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. **** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral) 1. Learned counsel submits that for the differential amount, the petitioners have already submitted a demand notice dated 05.03.2024, Annexure P21 and states that the same could not have been made as he had taken treatment from the empaneled hospital and the entire amount charged for medicines as also other expenses mentioned therein, was to be re-imbursed. He, on instructions, thus, prays that the matter be reconsidered and decided in light of the Policy, in a time bound manner. 2. The above facts having been brought out, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents fairly states that the Authority would not be averse to having a relook at the matter and consider it keeping in mind the submission made hereinabove & Policy and decide the same, within a period of 6 months, in accordance with law, after affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, which this Court has no reason to believe the authorities would not be addressed in a just, fair and reasonable manner. 3. The matter stands disposed of accordingly and if the petitioners are found entitled, grant the benefit forthwith. Needless to say, if the orders are adverse to their interest, the same shall contain reasons and they shall be free to seek legal redress thereupon. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) 13.08.2026 JUDGE ashok Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No ASHOK KUMAR 2026.08.13 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document