Injured Wife Is Sterling Witness — Her Identification Of Husband As Assailant Needs No Corroboration: Allahabad High Court Four Years in Custody, 359 Witnesses Pending, Trial Could Take Decades: Delhi HC Grants Bail to UAPA Accused Charged as "Hybrid Cadres" Prosecution's Fatal Mistake: Not Examining the Only Child Witness Who Saw the Accused — Madras High Court Acquits Murder Accused Co-sharers Entitled To Same Land Compensation As Other Owners Even If No Reference Filed Under Section 18 Or 28-A: Punjab & Haryana HC PIL Filed To Settle Personal Scores Cannot Hide Behind Public Interest: Rajasthan High Court Bars Petitioner From Filing Any PIL In Future Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Special NIA Court's Refusal To Discharge, Remedy Lies In Statutory Appeal: Allahabad High Court Rs. 57,000 Per Acre Award Inadequate for Fertile Commercial Land: AP High Court Enhances Compensation to Rs. 3.50 Lakh, Raises Tree Values Election Petition Must Plead Material Facts, Not Mere Allegations: Bombay High Court Rejects Challenge To Chandivali MLA’s Election Son Of Deceased Tenant Cannot Claim Statutory Protection Beyond 5 Years Under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act: Calcutta High Court Daughter Cannot Claim Mewar Estate Through Intestacy Petition While Disputing Will: Delhi High Court Dismisses Padmaja Kumari Parmar's Petition in Mewar Royal Family Succession Battle Cabinet Cannot Spend First and Seek Sanction Later: Kerala High Court Halts ₹20 Crore ‘Nava Keralam’ Programme Incorporation Under the Companies Act Does Not Confer Immunity Against an Action in Passing Off: Madras HC POCSO | School Records Prevail Over Ossification Test For Age Determination Of Minor Victim: Madhya Pradesh High Court A Buyer Who Runs Away From the Tehsil Without Paying Cannot Later Sue to Register the Sale Deed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Encroacher Cannot Claim Forest Rights by Calling Himself a Traditional Dweller: Madras High Court LIC Agent Certified Cancer Patient's Health As 'Good' Without Meeting Him: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Termination Property Bought From Crime Proceeds Before PMLA Came Into Force Can Still Be Attached If Possessed After: Delhi High Court Overturns Single Judge Co-Employee Cannot Play Watchdog Over Colleague's Dismissal Order — Allahabad High Court Shuts the Door on Third-Party Service Appeals

No Denial of Ayushman Bharat Benefits Due to Delayed Documentation: Rajasthan High Court

14 January 2025 3:11 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Subheadline: High Court orders Ramsnehi Chikitsalaya to reimburse patient’s medical expenses under Ayushman Bharat Scheme
The Rajasthan High Court has ruled in favor of a patient insured under the Ayushman Bharat Mahatma Gandhi Rajasthan Swasthya Bima Yojna, directing Ramsnehi Chikitsalaya and Anusandhan Kendra to reimburse Rs. 1,16,420 incurred for heart surgery. The judgment delivered by Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur on May 28, 2024, underscores that a delay in submitting insurance documentation does not disqualify a patient from receiving benefits.
The case originated when Nanuram, the respondent, suffered a heart ailment and was treated at Ramsnehi Chikitsalaya. Although he was insured under the Ayushman Bharat scheme, the hospital charged him Rs. 1,24,000 for the treatment, which Nanuram paid upfront. Post-discharge, Nanuram submitted the necessary documents to the District Collector for reimbursement, but the hospital claimed they had not received the insurance documentation, leading to the filing of a writ petition by the hospital against the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bhilwara.
Justice Mathur highlighted the critical nature of the patient's condition at the time of admission, acknowledging that neither the patient nor his family might have been in the right state of mind to submit the documents immediately. The court stated, "The fact that requisite documents showing the respondent No.1 being covered under the ‘Ayushman Bharat’ Scheme were not produced by him at the time of admission in the hospital will not disentitle the respondent No.1 to get the benefit under the scheme".
The court dismissed the petitioner’s argument that the delayed submission justified charging the patient. It emphasized the responsibility of healthcare providers to ensure that eligible patients receive benefits, regardless of when the documentation is submitted, provided it is done within a reasonable time after treatment.
The Permanent Lok Adalat had initially ruled in favor of Nanuram, awarding him the reimbursement and a cost of Rs. 5000, which the hospital contested. Justice Mathur upheld the reimbursement order but set aside the cost imposed by the Lok Adalat, directing the hospital to refund the amount within two weeks upon receipt of the necessary documents from Nanuram. Furthermore, the hospital was instructed to coordinate with the State Government for the reimbursement under the scheme.
The judgment reaffirms the entitlement of patients to insurance benefits under the Ayushman Bharat scheme, even if documentation is delayed, provided it is eventually submitted. This ruling aims to safeguard patients' rights and ensure they are not unfairly burdened with medical expenses due to procedural delays.


Date of Decision: May 28, 2024
 

Latest Legal News