Patient Forced To Buy Stents From Private Shop Due To Unavailability At Govt Hospital Entitled To Full Reimbursement: Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan High Court upheld a single judge order directing the State to reimburse the respondent for the entire cost of the stents implanted during his treatment at the government hospital which were procured from a private supplier due to unavailability at the hospital.While underscoring the right to healthcare and affordable treatment as part of Article 21, the division bench of Justice...
Rajasthan High Court upheld a single judge order directing the State to reimburse the respondent for the entire cost of the stents implanted during his treatment at the government hospital which were procured from a private supplier due to unavailability at the hospital.
While underscoring the right to healthcare and affordable treatment as part of Article 21, the division bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agarwal and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur observed that the provisions relating to reimbursement of medical treatment had to be construed liberally.
For context, the petition suffered from cardiac ailment and underwent a surgery at the Mathura Das Mathur Hospital, Jodhpur, during which 4 stents were implanted. Since the stents were not available at the hospital, these were procured from a private supplier, and costed around Rs. 2.70 Lakhs. Out of this, only Rs. 1.70 Lakhs were reimbursed to the respondent.
The respondent filed a petition before the Court in which the single judge ruled in his favour and directed the State to reimburse the full value of stents to him. The State challenged this order before the division bench.
The State argued that the decision was unjustified as it directed reimbursement of more than 3 stents which was not allowed as per Appendix IX of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 2013.
On the contrary, the respondent argued that if a patient was treated at a government hospital, it was the latter's duty to provide all the equipment and if a consumable was not available, the beneficiary had to buy it from private player in which case s/he had to be reimbursed fully.
After hearing the contentions, the Court referred to a Supreme Court decision of Consumer Education & Research Centre and others v. Union of India and others in which it was held that right to health and medical care to protect one's heath and vigour while in service or post-retirement was a fundamental right of a worker under Article 21.
Further reference was made to the Apex Court decision in In Re: The Proper Treatment of Covid 19 Patients and Dignified Handling of Dead Bodies in the Hospitals etc. in which it was held that right to health was a fundamental right under Article 21, and it included right to affordable treatment.
In this background, the Court observed, “it is quite vivid that right to health is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India…and consequently, the provisions relating to reimbursement of medical treatment have to be construed liberally.”
Accordingly, the decision of the single judge was upheld, and the State was directed to reimburse the remaining amount to the respondent.
Title: Chairman cum Managing Director, Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors. v Jagdish Chandra Bissa
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 396