Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Full Medical Reimbursement for Emergency Heart Transplant at Non-Empanelled Hospital; Holds Right to Life Overrides Procedural Restrictions
Case Name: Kapoor Singh v. State of Punjab and Others
Date of Judgment: 15 January 2026
Citation: CWP-39210-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that medical reimbursement cannot be denied merely on the ground that treatment was taken in a non-empanelled hospital when the procedure was undertaken in an emergency to save life. The Court held that the test of essentiality and emergency, read with Article 21 of the Constitution, mandates full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred under such circumstances.
Summary: The writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 29.10.2025 whereby the petitioner’s claim for reimbursement of medical expenses amounting to ₹20,30,000 was rejected in part, with only ₹10,08,246 having been reimbursed by the respondent-Corporation. The petitioner sought quashing of the said order and release of the remaining amount along with interest.
The petitioner had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. His son had been suffering from a congenital heart disease since birth and was advised heart transplantation. Initially, the petitioner enrolled his son in approved hospitals; however, due to non-availability of a donor, the son was admitted to MGM Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. Upon availability of a donor, surgery was conducted on 23.08.2023, but the petitioner’s son unfortunately succumbed on 24.08.2023. The petitioner thereafter applied for reimbursement of the full medical expenses incurred.
The respondents justified partial reimbursement on the basis of applicable rules and the fact that treatment was taken from a non-empanelled hospital. However, they could not dispute that the issue was covered by a Coordinate Bench judgment in Harpal Singh v. State of Haryana.
The Court held that the issue was no longer res integra and reiterated that reimbursement claims cannot be rejected solely because treatment was taken in a non-empanelled hospital. The Court emphasized that in cases of medical emergency, the test of essentiality prevails, and preservation of human life is an integral facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab, underscoring the State’s obligation to ensure timely medical care and to reimburse expenses incurred for life-saving treatment.
Applying these principles, the Court found that heart transplantation undertaken in the present case was an emergency medical procedure necessary to save life, and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to full reimbursement.
Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 29.10.2025 was set aside. The respondent-Corporation was directed to reimburse the remaining medical amount of ₹20,30,000, after adjusting the sum already paid, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the sanction order. Compliance was directed within four weeks, failing which interest at 9% per annum would be recoverable personally from the officer responsible for the delay.