Punjab & Haryana High Court Allows Medical Reimbursement for Emergency Treatment at Non-Empanelled Hospital; Sets Aside Concurrent Findings

Case Name: Satyawan v. State of Haryana and Others

Date of Decision: 20 January 2026

Citation: RSA-6062-2015

Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sudeepti Sharma

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the regular second appeal and held that medical expenses incurred by a government employee for emergency treatment of his dependent at a non-empanelled private hospital are reimbursable. The Court ruled that denial of reimbursement on the ground that the hospital was not empanelled or that the treatment was not certified as an emergency by government doctors, who had neither examined the patient nor were present at the time of treatment, is unsustainable in law.

Summary: The appellant, a Junior Engineer in HUDA, Haryana, sought reimbursement of ₹61,975 incurred on emergency medical treatment of his son, who sustained serious knee injuries after being hit by a furious bull while in Delhi. The child was immediately taken to Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute, New Delhi, where he underwent surgery on the same day. The hospital issued an emergency certificate.

The appellant applied for reimbursement, which was rejected on the ground that the treatment was taken at a non-empanelled hospital and that no emergency certificate was issued by the Civil Hospital, Rohtak. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak, and the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, dismissed the suit and appeal respectively, relying on an opinion of the Civil Surgeon stating that the surgery was elective and not an emergency.

The High Court observed that the Medical Superintendent, Civil Hospital, Rohtak, had refused to give any written opinion and had merely stated verbally that he was not present at the time of treatment. The Court held that the opinion of the Civil Surgeon, who neither examined the patient nor witnessed the incident or treatment, could not override the emergency certificate issued by the treating hospital.

The Court further held that under the Medical Reimbursement Rules and settled law, expenses incurred during emergency treatment are reimbursable even if the treatment is taken at a non-empanelled hospital. Relying on State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Chawla and Shiva Kant Jha v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that the State has a constitutional obligation to reimburse medical expenses of government employees and that emergency situations cannot be tested on rigid procedural standards.

Emphasising that “emergency knows no law and procedure,” the Court observed that parents, in moments of medical crisis involving their children, cannot be expected to evaluate empanelment status or reimbursement eligibility before seeking immediate treatment.

Decision: The appeal was allowed. The judgments and decrees passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak, and the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, were set aside. The civil suit filed by the appellant was decreed, entitling him to reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred.