Right To Health - Provisions Relating To Medical Treatment Reimbursement Are To Be Construed Liberally: Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that self-preservation is a facet of the right to health, a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Directing the authority to consider the request of the petitioner for post-facto medical reimbursement, Justice Sanjay Kumar Agarwal held that the provisions relating to reimbursement of medical treatment have to be construed...
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that self-preservation is a facet of the right to health, a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Directing the authority to consider the request of the petitioner for post-facto medical reimbursement, Justice Sanjay Kumar Agarwal held that the provisions relating to reimbursement of medical treatment have to be construed liberally.
The Court held that "right to health" includes "right to affordable treatment" and that "the provisions relating to reimbursement of medical treatment has to be construed liberally".
Background
The petitioner-nurse had surgery on the spinal cord, after which she claimed reimbursement of medical expenses amounting to Rs. 99,743/-. However, the claim was rejected because she has not intimidated surgery and thus is not entitled to reimbursement. The return of claim was justified that post-facto sanction cannot be granted based on the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013.
Advocare Akash Kumar Kundu, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that since the surgery was emergent, after which she had to stay admitted for seven days, the rule of informing the competent authority could not be complied with. He challenged the return of the medical bill as arbitrary as a rule that was not mandatory to be complied with. He also argued that the right to self-preservation is a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Deputy Advocate General submitted that the petitioner of her family members must have informed the authorities within 48 hours from the commencement of the treatment. In the absence of which the concerned rule for reimbursement cannot be invoked.
Findings of the Court
Referring to the concerned rules for medical reimbursement, the Court held that in case of emergency, intimation to the concerned department is required within 48 hours of commencement of treatment. Admitting that such communication was not made, the Court observed that in case of non-communication, whether the rules relating to post-facto sanction can be covered or not.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Consumer Education & Research Centre and Ors v. Union of India & Ors. In this case, it was held that the right to health and medicine is to protect his health and vigor while in service or post-retirement is a worker's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
After referring to a catena of other apex court judgments, the Court noted that the petitioner had the right to take steps in self-preservation of her own life, a facet of the right to health. It further noted,
"..non-intimation of commencement of treatment within 48 hours would not preclude her from recovering the amount of medical reimbursement from the respondents, as Rule 11 of the Rules of 2013 takes care of that situation and under Rule 11(1), a post-facto sanction can be granted by the competent authority."
The Court directed the authority to consider the petitioner's case for grant of post-facto sanction under the concerned rules within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order.
Case Title : Khuku Biswas v State of Chattisgarh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 3