Right To Health Integral To The Right To Life Under The Constitution: Andhra Pradesh HC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a recent judgment, gave a huge relief to a senior citizen in a medical reimbursement matter. Justice Subba Reddy Satti said, “The right to health is integral to the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” while allowing the petition of the senior citizen, who had been struggling for over 10 years to get medical reimbursement for the cancer treatment of his deceased wife. The court emphasised that the right to health and medical care is an integral part of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

This case pertained to a government employee whose employer (the state government) denied paying him the reimbursement, citing a 2011 order. The court held that while the government may issue orders to maintain fiscal discipline, such administrative action cannot override fundamental rights. The court allowed the petition and directed the state government to sanction reimbursement  of Rs 96,424 to the petitioner.

Background

The petitioner incurred medical expenses for his wife's treatment of breast cancer with bone metastasis between March 24, 2007, and June 28, 2007. But she later passed away. The petitioner sought reimbursement of medical expenses of Rs 1,28,446.

The point of contention in the matter was that he (petitioner) submitted the reimbursement bills in October 2009, whereas the treatment ended in 2007. However, after scrutinising the bills, the Director of Medical Education approved a Rs 96,424, after a 15 per cent deduction, as per the prescribed rules for belated claims.

The petitioner sought relaxation for the delay, but it was returned by the secretary to the government (respondent in this case) in January 2012, referring to a government order passed in 2011.

Arguments

The petitioner’s counsel argued that it was illegal on the part of the respondent to return the proposal. On the other hand, the counsel of the government (Municipal Administration and Urban Development) cited the government order ‘G.O. M.s No. 230, dated October 15, 2011’ as the valid reason for rejecting the relaxation.

The G.O. mandated that no relaxation of rules that can put additional burden on the Exchequer, such as payment of medical bills, would be permitted.

Court Observation

The court noted that the G.O. was issued on October 15, 2011, and it operates only prospectively. Since the petitioner made the claim initially in 2009, the G.O. was deemed inapplicable.

Whether the G.O. override the  fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the court observed, “It is a well-settled principle of Constitutional law that the Constitution of India is the supreme law of the land. No administrative order, executive action, or Government Order, howsoever issued, can override, curtail, or suspend the provisions of the Constitution of India. This principle has been time and again reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court.”

Court Judgment

It referred to previous judgments of the Supreme Court, and said, “The government order will not overturn the right guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Unfortunately, the petitioner, a retired employee, has been made to wait for a claim of Rs 96,424/- for more than a decade.”

It set aside the rejection memo issued by the respondent to the petitioner and allowed the petition. The court directed the respondent to sanction the necessary relaxation within three weeks. It directed the authorities also to ensure that payment reaches the petitioner without delay, preferably within four weeks.