The Delhi High Court has expressed significant concern over the Delhi government’s decision to deny a full reimbursement of medical expenses to a court staff member for his wife’s critical medical treatment. In a judgment delivered on May 29, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna described the handling of this legitimate medical claim as deeply troubling.
Case Background
Jeet Singh, an ahlmad at the Tis Hazari Court, found himself in a legal battle over medical expenses incurred for his wife, who was admitted to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital in 2006 in a comatose state due to liver failure. The court had sanctioned an advance of ₹2,25,000 for her treatment, but the actual hospital bill totaled ₹1,89,324.
However, the Delhi government applied a reimbursement ceiling based on a 2002 notification, capping the repayment to ₹1,17,456. Consequently, Singh was served a demand notice for the recovery of ₹71,868, which led him to challenge this notice in the High Court.
High Court’s Judgment
The Delhi High Court stayed the demand notice in 2007 and made it absolute in 2011. In its recent verdict, the Court found the application of the 2002 reimbursement ceiling legally unsustainable. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna stated that there was no evidence suggesting the 2002 Rate Schedule had any rational connection to the actual costs of intensive emergency treatment at a specialized hospital in 2006.
The Court quashed the demand notice and directed the Delhi government to provide full reimbursement of ₹1,89,324. The Court criticized the deduction of Singh’s salary to recover medical expenses as arbitrary and declared it an inhuman approach, as previously deprecated by the Supreme Court.
More Read
Further Directions and Observations
The Court directed the district court to refund the deducted amount with a 6% annual interest within eight weeks from the judgment. Singh, under the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944, claimed entitlement to medical benefits for himself and his family. The State’s allegation of fraud was dismissed by the Court, which pointed out that the final bill was lower than the initial estimate, indicating Singh’s bona fides.
The judgment emphasized that the allegation of fraud against Singh lacked basis, as there were no questions about the treatment or expenditure, only the extent of reimbursement. The legal representation for the Delhi government included Standing Counsel Avnish Ahlawat, with advocates Nitesh Kumar Singh, Aliza Alam, and Mohnish Sehrawat, while Advocates Vishal Thakur and Amita Singh represented Sir Gangaram Hospital.
