Key Points:
Judgment delivered on January 31, 2026 by Justice Sandeep Moudgil.
HC ordered full reimbursement for emergency treatment at non-empanelled hospital.
Rama Kant Sharma hospitalised January 16 to 25, 2018 in Gurugram.
Total bill ₹3,54,647; State paid ₹1,38,422.
Court directed payment of ₹2,16,225 with 9 percent interest.
Held right to health under Article 21 overrides rigid policy limits.
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Haryana government to fully reimburse emergency medical expenses incurred by a retired government engineer at a private non-empaneled hospital. Delivering the judgment on January 31, 2026, Justice Sandeep Moudgil held that the right to health is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution and cannot be curtailed by rigid policy restrictions.
The Court ordered the State to pay the remaining ₹2,16,225 along with interest at 9 percent per annum from January 25, 2018, the date of discharge, until actual payment. The amount must be paid within four weeks.
The case, CWP-257-2019, was filed by Rama Kant Sharma, a retired Chief Engineer from the Irrigation and Water Resources Department, Government of Haryana.
In January 2018, Sharma suffered a serious medical emergency while in Hisar. His condition deteriorated rapidly and he slipped into a coma. Doctors advised immediate transfer, and on January 16, 2018, he was shifted to Fortis Memorial Research Institute in Gurugram.
He was admitted to the Emergency Intensive Care Unit and diagnosed with viral meningoencephalitis, a life-threatening neurological condition requiring urgent intervention. Sharma remained hospitalized until January 25, 2018.
The total medical bill amounted to ₹3,54,647. He submitted an emergency certificate from the Civil Surgeon, Gurugram, along with the essentiality certificate issued by the hospital while seeking reimbursement under the State’s medical reimbursement policy.
The Haryana government processed the claim under its policy dated May 6, 2005 and subsequent instructions. Since Fortis was not an empaneled hospital, the authorities limited reimbursement to PGIMER and AIIMS rates.
As a result, only ₹1,38,422 was reimbursed. The remaining amount was denied. The calculation sheet dated May 17, 2018, detailing this restriction, was supplied to Sharma later through an RTI application.
Challenging the reduction, Sharma approached the High Court, arguing that the restriction was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. He contended that in a life-threatening emergency, neither he nor his family could be expected to verify empanelment status before securing treatment.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil examined established Supreme Court precedents including Shiva Kant Jha v. Union of India and State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla. The Court reiterated that the right to health and medical care forms an essential component of the right to life under Article 21.
The Court held that the State’s obligation to provide medical support extends even after an employee’s retirement. It further observed that bureaucratic technicalities such as empanelment status cannot override constitutional guarantees in life-threatening situations.
The judgment emphasized that saving human life must take precedence over administrative compliance.
In a notable philosophical reference, the Court cited verses from the Garuda Purana to underline the principle of self-preservation. The judgment noted that protecting one’s body is fundamental to fulfilling duties and sustaining life. By invoking this text, the Court reinforced the idea that policies must serve the larger purpose of safeguarding human life.
The High Court:
Quashed the calculation sheet dated May 17, 2018 in extent, as it restricted reimbursement
Directed the State to pay the remaining ₹2,16,225
Awarded 9 percent interest from January 25, 2018 until actual payment
Ordered compliance within four weeks
Urged the State government to revisit its reimbursement policy to incorporate flexibility for genuine medical emergencies at non-empanelled hospitals
Rama Kant Sharma was represented by Advocate D.R. Bansal. The State of Haryana was represented by R.D. Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
(Rh/ARC)