CWP-7215 IN THE 267 Harpal Singh State of Haryana CORAM: Present : HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. of the Constitution of India with i) quash the office order dated 26.06.2023 (Annexure P respondent No.1 Haryana, Agricultural and the reply dated 28.06.2024 (Annexure P by the respondent the extent that the petitioner was only sanctioned Rs.38,084/ gall bladder surgery despite the fact that the petitioner submitted bills amounting to Rs.5,85,341/ surgery and Rs.59,590/ whereby this action of respondents is in violation of the policy dated 1 7215-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Harpal Singh VERSUS Haryana and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Abhishek Sirohi, Advocate for Dr. Pankaj Nanhera Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Kumar Singla, Asst. AG Mr. Prince Singh, Advocate for respondent **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with the following “For issuance of a writ in the nature of quash the office order dated 26.06.2023 (Annexure P respondent No.1 (i.e. Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, Agricultural and the reply dated 28.06.2024 (Annexure P by the respondent-Corporation and Farmers Wel the extent that the petitioner was only sanctioned Rs.38,084/ gall bladder surgery despite the fact that the petitioner submitted bills amounting to Rs.5,85,341/- (i.e. Rs.4,85,090/ surgery and Rs.59,590/- and Rs.40,661,/ whereby this action of respondents is in violation of the policy dated HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-7215-2025 Date of Decision: 10.09 2025 .....Petitioner VERSUS .....Respondents HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Abhishek Sirohi, Advocate for Dr. Pankaj Nanhera Asst. AG, Haryana. for respondents No.3 to 5. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 the following prayers:- “For issuance of a writ in the nature of nature of certiorari to quash the office order dated 26.06.2023 (Annexure P-1) issued by Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, Agricultural and the reply dated 28.06.2024 (Annexure P-4) Corporation and Farmers Welfare Department to the extent that the petitioner was only sanctioned Rs.38,084/- for the gall bladder surgery despite the fact that the petitioner submitted bills (i.e. Rs.4,85,090/- for bypass cardiac nd Rs.40,661,/- for gallbladder surgery) whereby this action of respondents is in violation of the policy dated 2025 .....Petitioner .....Respondents Mr. Abhishek Sirohi, Advocate for Dr. Abhishek Sirohi, Advocate for Dr. Pankaj Nanhera, The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 certiorari to 1) issued by Additional Chief Secretary, Government of 4) fare Department to for the gall bladder surgery despite the fact that the petitioner submitted bills for bypass cardiac for gallbladder surgery) whereby this action of respondents is in violation of the policy dated PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.16 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7215 06.05.2005 (Annexure P reimbursement of medical expense and as per the law rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, 2018(2) SCT 529 ii) respondents to reimburse the petitioner for the medical expenses incurred by him amounting to bypass cardiac surgery and Rs.59,590/ gallbladder surgery) for the surgeries that the petitioner underwent to save his life as this action of the respondents is violative of the policy dated 06.05. expense and as per the law rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court India in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950, in the interest of justice. iii) amount i.e.Rs.2,92,670/ petitioner during the pendency of the civil writ petition as the petitioner is a senior citizen and is harbouring under health related issues, in the interest of justice. 2. petitioner is a senior citizen and has retired as Manager from Haryana State Warehousing Corporation. In the month of February, 2022, the petitioner underwent a bypass surgery in emergent condition, which was conducted at 2 7215-2025 06.05.2005 (Annexure P-5) for reimbursement of medical reimbursement of medical expense and as per the law rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Shiv of India, 2018(2) SCT 529 in the interest of justice. Issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to reimburse the petitioner for the medical expenses incurred by him amounting to Rs.5,85,341/ bypass cardiac surgery and Rs.59,590/ gallbladder surgery) for the surgeries that the petitioner underwent to save his life as this action of the respondents is violative of the policy dated 06.05.2005 (Annexure P-5) for reimbursement of medical expense and as per the law rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court India in Shiva Kant Jha’s case (supra) Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950, in the interest of justice. Issuance of a direction to the respondents to release half the amount i.e.Rs.2,92,670/- on account of medical reimbursement to the petitioner during the pendency of the civil writ petition as the petitioner is a senior citizen and is harbouring under health related issues, in the interest of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner is a senior citizen and has retired as Manager from Haryana State Warehousing Corporation. In the month of February, 2022, the petitioner underwent a bypass surgery in emergent condition, which was conducted at 5) for reimbursement of medical reimbursement of medical expense and as per the law rendered by the India in Shiva Kant Jha Versus Union in the interest of justice. Issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to reimburse the petitioner for the medical expenses Rs.5,85,341/- (i.e. Rs.4,85,090/- for bypass cardiac surgery and Rs.59,590/- and Rs.40,661/- for gallbladder surgery) for the surgeries that the petitioner underwent to save his life as this action of the respondents is violative of the policy 5) for reimbursement of medical expense and as per the law rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of ’s case (supra) and is also violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950, in the interest of justice. Issuance of a direction to the respondents to release half the on account of medical reimbursement to the petitioner during the pendency of the civil writ petition as the petitioner is a senior citizen and is harbouring under economic and health related issues, in the interest of justice.” Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner is a senior citizen and has retired as Manager from Haryana State Warehousing Corporation. In the month of February, 2022, the petitioner underwent a bypass surgery in emergent condition, which was conducted at 5) for reimbursement of medical reimbursement of medical expense and as per the law rendered by the Kant Jha Versus Union Issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to reimburse the petitioner for the medical expenses for for gallbladder surgery) for the surgeries that the petitioner underwent to save his life as this action of the respondents is violative of the policy 5) for reimbursement of medical of and is also violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950, in the interest of justice. Issuance of a direction to the respondents to release half the on account of medical reimbursement to the petitioner during the pendency of the civil writ petition as the economic and that the petitioner is a senior citizen and has retired as Manager from Haryana State Warehousing Corporation. In the month of February, 2022, the petitioner underwent a bypass surgery in emergent condition, which was conducted at PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.16 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7215 Dayanand Medical College Ludhiana, for which, petitioner had incurred an amount of Rs.4,85,090/ Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted his entire medical record including the bills to respondent No.4 for reimbursement of medical expe the petitioner while recovering from the bypass surgery had to underwent another surgery of his gallbladder in June, 2022, for which, the petitioner against submitted his two bills for the surgery amounting to Rs.59,590/ Rs.40,661/- contends that vide order dated 26.06.2023 respondent No.1 Secretary, sanctioned amount of Rs.38,084/ Annexure P representation by citing judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Shiva Kant Jha’s case (supra) claim of the petitioner sympathetically in the view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble the surgeries. 3. aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent spent on surgeries, served legal no (Annexure P passed in Shiva Kant Jha petitioner cannot be denied on the ground that he has not taken the from an empanelled hospital. As such, the petitioner is entitled to full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him. 3 7215-2025 Dayanand Medical College and Hospital Ludhiana, for which, petitioner had incurred an amount of Rs.4,85,090/ Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted his entire medical record including the bills to respondent No.4 for reimbursement of medical expe the petitioner while recovering from the bypass surgery had to underwent another surgery of his gallbladder in June, 2022, for which, the petitioner against submitted his two bills for the surgery amounting to Rs.59,590/ - to the respondent No.4 on 28.09.2022. Learned counsel further contends that vide order dated 26.06.2023 respondent No.1 Secretary, sanctioned amount of Rs.38,084/ Annexure P-1. Feeling aggrieved thereof representation by citing judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Shiva Kant Jha’s case (supra) requesting the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioner sympathetically in the view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on the surgeries. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent spent on surgeries, served legal notice on 11.04.2024 to respondent No.4 (Annexure P-3). Learned counsel further relies upon the judgment Shiva Kant Jha’s case (supra) petitioner cannot be denied on the ground that he has not taken the from an empanelled hospital. As such, the petitioner is entitled to full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him. and Hospital Unit-Hero DMC Heart Institute Ludhiana, for which, petitioner had incurred an amount of Rs.4,85,090/- Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted his entire medical record including the bills to respondent No.4 for reimbursement of medical expenses. Further, the petitioner while recovering from the bypass surgery had to underwent another surgery of his gallbladder in June, 2022, for which, the petitioner against submitted his two bills for the surgery amounting to Rs.59,590/- and the respondent No.4 on 28.09.2022. Learned counsel further contends that vide order dated 26.06.2023 respondent No.1-Additional Chief Secretary, sanctioned amount of Rs.38,084/-, as is discernible from thereof, the petitioner made a representation by citing judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in requesting the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioner sympathetically in the view of the law laid down by Apex Court for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that feeling aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent in not disbursing the amount tice on 11.04.2024 to respondent No.4 Learned counsel further relies upon the judgment passed in and submits that the claim of the petitioner cannot be denied on the ground that he has not taken the treatment from an empanelled hospital. As such, the petitioner is entitled to full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him. Hero DMC Heart Institute -. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted his entire medical record including nses. Further, the petitioner while recovering from the bypass surgery had to underwent another surgery of his gallbladder in June, 2022, for which, the petitioner and the respondent No.4 on 28.09.2022. Learned counsel further Additional Chief , as is discernible from , the petitioner made a representation by citing judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in requesting the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioner sympathetically in the view of the law laid down by Apex Court for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on feeling in not disbursing the amount tice on 11.04.2024 to respondent No.4 passed in and submits that the claim of the treatment from an empanelled hospital. As such, the petitioner is entitled to full PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.16 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7215 4. behalf of respondents No.3 to 5 and copy thereof suppli Registry is directed to do the needful. 5. submits that out of total claim submitted by the petitioner amount of Rs.3,07,370 and with regard to the remaining amount, the petitioner having no vested right and it has to be considered strictly only in terms of the applicable policy 6. judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in wherein it was held that during the treatment from the non hospital, if amount spent on the treatment is required to be released. Further, learned counsel submits that claim of petitioner in emergency empanelled, as at that point of time the preservation of the human life was of the paramount consideration. 7. record with their able assistance. 8. surgery in the month of February, 2022 and further it is not the case respondent medical record. 4 7215-2025 Learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 5 filed reply on behalf of respondents No.3 to 5 and copy thereof suppli Registry is directed to do the needful. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that out of total claim submitted by the petitioner amount of 370/- has been reimbursed in terms of the policy dated 06.05.2005 and with regard to the remaining amount, the petitioner having no vested right and it has to be considered strictly only in terms of the applicable policy and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiva Kant Jha wherein it was held that during the treatment from the non hospital, if based on genuine reasons, the medical reimbursement of the amount spent on the treatment is required to be released. Further, learned counsel submits that claim of petitioner in admitting the patient in hospital in emergency cannot be denied on the ground that empanelled, as at that point of time the preservation of the human life was of the paramount consideration. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had underwent bypass surgery in the month of February, 2022 and further it is not the case respondent that the claim of the petitioner is based upon medical record. The controversy involved in the present case is of non Learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 5 filed reply on behalf of respondents No.3 to 5 and copy thereof supplied to opposite side. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent(s) submits that out of total claim submitted by the petitioner amount of has been reimbursed in terms of the policy dated 06.05.2005 and with regard to the remaining amount, the petitioner is not entitled as having no vested right and it has to be considered strictly only in terms of al of the writ petition. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the Shiva Kant Jha’s case (supra) wherein it was held that during the treatment from the non-empanelled nuine reasons, the medical reimbursement of the amount spent on the treatment is required to be released. Further, learned in admitting the patient in hospital on the ground that the hospital is not empanelled, as at that point of time the preservation of the human life was of I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the the petitioner had underwent bypass surgery in the month of February, 2022 and further it is not the case of that the claim of the petitioner is based upon irrelevant/bogus The controversy involved in the present case is of non Learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 5 filed reply on ed to opposite side. (s) submits that out of total claim submitted by the petitioner amount of has been reimbursed in terms of the policy dated 06.05.2005 as having no vested right and it has to be considered strictly only in terms of In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the ’s case (supra), empanelled nuine reasons, the medical reimbursement of the amount spent on the treatment is required to be released. Further, learned in admitting the patient in hospital spital is not empanelled, as at that point of time the preservation of the human life was of I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the the petitioner had underwent bypass of /bogus The controversy involved in the present case is of non- PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.16 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7215 payment of differential medical reimbursement because the petitioner had remained admitted in hospital which petitioner was serious and it was the case of emergency. medical reimbursement ought not to petitioner underwent treatment and admitted in a non cases, the test of essentiality and emergency comes into play, which dictates that if the medical procedure was undergone by the emergency, on the advice of a doctor based on medical record, the reimbursement for the same must be made. Not only is the preservation of human life instinctive, but it also forms a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, it shall alway priority. 9. availability of timely medical care to those in need. As such, it cannot expect the citizens to refrain from availing timely care, merely for the reason of non-empane not satisfy the criteria of fairness and reasonableness and therefore, amounts to a violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reliance in this rendered by a two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh vs. State of Punjab and others(1996) 2 SCC 336, through Justice M.M. Punchhi, the following was opined: “8. The policy, provi surgery in the Escorts, specifically came to be examined by a Division 5 7215-2025 payment of differential medical reimbursement because the petitioner had remained admitted in hospital which is not empanelled. The condition of the petitioner was serious and it was the case of emergency. medical reimbursement ought not to be dismissed merely because the underwent treatment and admitted in a non cases, the test of essentiality and emergency comes into play, which dictates that if the medical procedure was undergone by the ency, on the advice of a doctor based on medical record, the reimbursement for the same must be made. Not only is the preservation of human life instinctive, but it also forms a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, it shall alway Moreover, the State bears an obligation to ensure the availability of timely medical care to those in need. As such, it cannot expect the citizens to refrain from availing timely care, merely for the reason of empanelment of the hospital. Such conduct on the part of the State does not satisfy the criteria of fairness and reasonableness and therefore, amounts to a violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgments rendered by a two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh vs. State of Punjab and others(1996) 2 SCC 336, through Justice M.M. Punchhi, the following was opined: “8. The policy, providing recognition for treatment of open heart surgery in the Escorts, specifically came to be examined by a Division payment of differential medical reimbursement because the petitioner had not empanelled. The condition of the petitioner was serious and it was the case of emergency. The claim for be dismissed merely because the underwent treatment and admitted in a non-empanelled. In such cases, the test of essentiality and emergency comes into play, which dictates that if the medical procedure was undergone by the petitioner in an ency, on the advice of a doctor based on medical record, the reimbursement for the same must be made. Not only is the preservation of human life instinctive, but it also forms a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, it shall always retain the highest Moreover, the State bears an obligation to ensure the availability of timely medical care to those in need. As such, it cannot expect the citizens to refrain from availing timely care, merely for the reason of lment of the hospital. Such conduct on the part of the State does not satisfy the criteria of fairness and reasonableness and therefore, amounts to a violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21 of the regard can be placed on the judgments rendered by a two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and others(1996) 2 SCC 336,whereby, speaking through Justice M.M. Punchhi, the following was opined: ding recognition for treatment of open heart surgery in the Escorts, specifically came to be examined by a Division payment of differential medical reimbursement because the petitioner had not empanelled. The condition of the The claim for be dismissed merely because the empanelled. In such cases, the test of essentiality and emergency comes into play, which dictates in an ency, on the advice of a doctor based on medical record, the reimbursement for the same must be made. Not only is the preservation of human life instinctive, but it also forms a part of Article 21 of the s retain the highest Moreover, the State bears an obligation to ensure the availability of timely medical care to those in need. As such, it cannot expect the citizens to refrain from availing timely care, merely for the reason of lment of the hospital. Such conduct on the part of the State does not satisfy the criteria of fairness and reasonableness and therefore, amounts to a violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21 of the regard can be placed on the judgments Surjit whereby, speaking ding recognition for treatment of open heart surgery in the Escorts, specifically came to be examined by a Division PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.16 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7215 Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High C.W.P. No. 13493 of 1992 titled as through Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Punjab, Ci Secretariat, Chandigarh and others, 1994(1) SCT 552 (P&H). petitioner to medical reimbursement was accepted when in order to save his life he had got himself operated upon in the Escorts, and the plea of the State that he could be paid rates as prevalent in the AIIMS was rejected. Special Leave Petition No. 22024 of 1995 against the said decision was dismissed by this judgments of the High case are : xxx 10. It is otherwise important to bear in mind that self preservation of one's life is the necessary concomitant of the right to life enshrined in Article precious and inviolable. The importance and validity of the duty and right to self criminal law… 6 7215-2025 Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High C.W.P. No. 13493 of 1992 titled as Sadhu R. Pall v. State of Punjab through Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Punjab, Ci Secretariat, Chandigarh and others, 1994(1) SCT 552 (P&H). decided on 6.10.1993, wherein the claim of the then writ petitioner to medical reimbursement was accepted when in order to save his life he had got himself operated upon in the Escorts, and the plea of the State that he could be paid rates as prevalent in the AIIMS was rejected. Special Leave Petition No. 22024 of 1995 against the said decision was dismissed by this judgments of the High Court following the decision case are : (1) C.W.P. No. 18562 of 1992 decided on 10.5.95 titled Kohli v. State of Punjab and others, 1995(4) SCT 280 (P&H) (2) C.W.P. No. 260 of 1995, decided on 30.5.1995 titled Ravi Mohan Duggal v. State of Punjab and others (DB) (3) C.W.P. No. 5669 of 1994 decid Prem Singh Gill v. State of Punjab and others; (4) 1995(4) SCT 816 (P&H) : 1995 (III) Punjab Law Report 529 titled Tarlok Chander v. State of Punjab etc. (SB); (5) 1996(2) SCT 148 (P&H) : 1995 (III), Punjab Law Reporter 682 titled Mrs. Surya Pandit v. State of Punjab and others xxx 10. It is otherwise important to bear in mind that self preservation of one's life is the necessary concomitant of the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India precious and inviolable. The importance and validity of the duty and right to self-preservation has a species in the right of self defence in criminal law… Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Sadhu R. Pall v. State of Punjab through Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others, 1994(1) SCT 552 decided on 6.10.1993, wherein the claim of the then writ petitioner to medical reimbursement was accepted when in order to save his life he had got himself operated upon in the Escorts, and the plea of the State that he could be paid rates as prevalent in the AIIMS was rejected. Special Leave Petition No. 22024 of 1995 against the said decision was dismissed by this Court on 2.2.1994. The other following the decision in Sadhu R. Pall's (1) C.W.P. No. 18562 of 1992 decided on 10.5.95 titled K.L. Kohli v. State of Punjab and others, 1995(4) SCT 280 (P&H); C.W.P. No. 260 of 1995, decided on 30.5.1995 titled Ravi Mohan Duggal v. State of Punjab and others (DB) C.W.P. No. 5669 of 1994 decided on 4.9.94 titled Gill v. State of Punjab and others; 1995(4) SCT 816 (P&H) : 1995 (III) Punjab Law Report 529 titled Tarlok Chander v. State of Punjab etc. (SB); and 1996(2) SCT 148 (P&H) : 1995 (III), Punjab Law Reporter 682 titled Mrs. Surya Pandit v. State of Punjab and others (SB) xxx xxx 10. It is otherwise important to bear in mind that self preservation of one's life is the necessary concomitant of the right to life enshrined in India , fundamental in nature, sacred, precious and inviolable. The importance and validity of the duty and preservation has a species in the right of self defence in at Chandigarh in Sadhu R. Pall v. State of Punjab vil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others, 1994(1) SCT 552 decided on 6.10.1993, wherein the claim of the then writ petitioner to medical reimbursement was accepted when in order to save his life he had got himself operated upon in the Escorts, and the plea of the State that he could be paid rates as prevalent in the AIIMS was rejected. Special Leave Petition No. 22024 of 1995 against the on 2.2.1994. The other in Sadhu R. Pall's K.L. C.W.P. No. 260 of 1995, decided on 30.5.1995 titled Ravi ed on 4.9.94 titled 1995(4) SCT 816 (P&H) : 1995 (III) Punjab Law Report 1996(2) SCT 148 (P&H) : 1995 (III), Punjab Law Reporter (SB) 10. It is otherwise important to bear in mind that self preservation of one's life is the necessary concomitant of the right to life enshrined in n nature, sacred, precious and inviolable. The importance and validity of the duty and preservation has a species in the right of self defence in PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.16 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7215 11. The appellant therefore had the right to take steps in self preservation. H Board, the manning and assembling of which, bare meetings difficult to happen. The appellant also did not have to stand in queue in the Government hospital of AIIMS and could go elsewhe to an alternate hospital as per policy. When the State itself has brought the Escorts on the recognised list, it is futile for it to contend that the appellant could in no event have gone to the Escorts and his claim cannot on that basis be allowed, on the contrary…” 10. procedure, which was necessary at that moment in order to save his life, as also depicted by his medical record. Therefore, the test of emergency stands satisfied regard to subsequent time and the test thereof same was not conducted in an emergency 11. respondents are directed to surgery undergone by petitioner within a period of date of receiving a certified copy of this order. reimbursement of amount incurred on subsequent surgery of gall bladder by petitioner, the respondent(s) terms of their applicable policy, if not ma 7 7215-2025 11. The appellant therefore had the right to take steps in self preservation. He did not have to stand in queue before the Medical Board, the manning and assembling of which, bare meetings difficult to happen. The appellant also did not have to stand in queue in the Government hospital of AIIMS and could go elsewhe to an alternate hospital as per policy. When the State itself has brought the Escorts on the recognised list, it is futile for it to contend that the appellant could in no event have gone to the Escorts and his claim cannot on that basis be allowed, on contrary…” In the matter at hand, the petitioner underwent bypass surgery procedure, which was necessary at that moment in order to save his life, as also depicted by his medical record. Therefore, the test of emergency stands satisfied to the extent of bypass surgery. However, with subsequent gallbladder surgery was time and the test thereof, essentiality and emergency not conducted in an emergency. Accordingly, the present petition is respondents are directed to make remaining undergone by petitioner within a period of receiving a certified copy of this order. reimbursement of amount incurred on subsequent surgery of gall bladder by petitioner, the respondent(s)-competent authority shall pay the amount in their applicable policy, if not made, till date. 11. The appellant therefore had the right to take steps in self e did not have to stand in queue before the Medical Board, the manning and assembling of which, bare-facedly, makes its meetings difficult to happen. The appellant also did not have to stand in queue in the Government hospital of AIIMS and could go elsewhere to an alternate hospital as per policy. When the State itself has brought the Escorts on the recognised list, it is futile for it to contend that the appellant could in no event have gone to the Escorts and his claim cannot on that basis be allowed, on suppositions. We think to In the matter at hand, the petitioner underwent bypass surgery procedure, which was necessary at that moment in order to save his life, as also depicted by his medical record. Therefore, the test of essentiality and to the extent of bypass surgery. However, with was not necessary at that point of essentiality and emergency is not satisfied, as the Accordingly, the present petition is partly allowed. The remaining payment incurred for the bypass undergone by petitioner within a period of four months from the receiving a certified copy of this order. However, regarding the reimbursement of amount incurred on subsequent surgery of gall bladder by competent authority shall pay the amount in de, till date. 11. The appellant therefore had the right to take steps in self e did not have to stand in queue before the Medical facedly, makes its meetings difficult to happen. The appellant also did not have to stand re to an alternate hospital as per policy. When the State itself has brought the Escorts on the recognised list, it is futile for it to contend that the appellant could in no event have gone to the Escorts and his We think to In the matter at hand, the petitioner underwent bypass surgery procedure, which was necessary at that moment in order to save his life, as essentiality and to the extent of bypass surgery. However, with not necessary at that point of , as the allowed. The for the bypass months from the However, regarding the reimbursement of amount incurred on subsequent surgery of gall bladder by competent authority shall pay the amount in PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.16 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7215 12. disposed of. September P.C 8 7215-2025 Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. September 10, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2025.09.16 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document