Order Taking Cognizance Must Reflect Application Of Mind; Section 197 CrPC Sanction Mandatory For Prosecuting Public Servants: Karnataka High Court Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Partially Against Specific Defendants Or Properties; Limitation Is A Triable Issue: Telangana High Court Employee Having National Trade Certificate & Prior Experience To Be Treated As 'Highly Skilled' For Compensation: Orissa High Court Insurance Company Entitled To Subpoena Investigating Officer For Vehicle Records When Insured Is Untraceable: Madras High Court Seller's Fraudulent Conduct & Non-Disclosure Of Mortgage Justify Refund Of Advance Sale Consideration: Kerala High Court Complaint Under Section 138 NI Act Filed By Partner On Behalf Of Firm Maintainable Even Without Specific Authorization Letter: Gujarat High Court Extension Of Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act Requires Public Prosecutor's Independent Report, Not Just IO's Request: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orissa Grama Panchayats Act | No Bar On Rescheduling No-Confidence Motion Meeting Before Its Commencement: High Court Non-Preparation Of ‘Nil’ Seizure List After Searching Raiding Officer Not Fatal To NDPS Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Registration Of Trademark Confers Exclusive Right To Sue For Infringement Irrespective Of Whether Mark Is In Use: Delhi High Court Presence Of Magistrate Not Mandatory For Recording Dying Declaration; Conviction Can Be Based On DD Recorded By Police: Bombay High Court Routine Bank Transfers Between Spouses For Daily Needs Are Gratuitous Payments, Not Recoverable As Entrusted Funds: Kerala High Court Clerical Lapses Under Work Pressure Amount To Dereliction Of Duty, Not Crime: Madras High Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Deputy BDO Burden Of Proving Sale Deed Is Bona Fide Lies On Beneficiary If Executant Is Illiterate Or Vulnerable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Employee Cannot Take Advantage Of Own Delay; Employer Not Required To Preserve Disciplinary Records For Eternity: Bombay High Court Deadline To File Evidence Under Rule 45 Trade Marks Rules Is Directory, Registrar Can Extend Time Under Section 131: Bombay High Court Exclusion Of Interest In Insurance Policy Is Conditional; Insurer Must Plead & Prove Employer's Failure To Comply With Act To Avoid Liability: Kerala High Court Practicing Lawyer Entitled To Interim Maintenance From Husband If Income Is Insufficient To Maintain Standard Of Living: Orissa High Court Section 138 NI Act Offences Can Be Compounded At Any Stage Even After Dismissal Of Revision Or Appeal: Madras High Court Unsuccessful Party Seeking Post-Award Interim Relief Under Section 9 Faces 'Higher Threshold', Must Show Rare & Compelling Circumstances: Bombay High Court

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