Auction Purchaser Has No Vested Right Without Sale Confirmation: Calcutta HC Upholds Borrower’s Redemption Right Under Pre-Amendment SARFAESI Law Mere Breach of Promise to Marry Doesn’t Amount to Rape: Delhi High Court Acquits Man in False Rape Case Father Is the Natural Guardian After Mother’s Death, Mere Technicalities Cannot Override Welfare of Child: Orissa High Court Restores Custody to Biological Father Assets of Wife and Father-in-Law Can Be Considered in Disproportionate Assets Case Against Public Servant: Kerala High Court Refuses Discharge Identification Without TIP, Electronic Records Without 65B Certificate – Conviction Set Aside: Patna High Court Nothing Inflicts A Deeper Wound On Our Constitutional Culture Than A State Official Running Berserk Regardless Of Human Rights: Jharkhand High Court Orders ₹1.5 Lakh Interim Compensation Dishonour Due to ‘Account Blocked’ Not Attributable to Drawer—No Offence Under Section 138 NI Act: Delhi High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act Cannot Be Rebutted By Mere Assertions: Delhi High Court Affirms Conviction In 32-Year-Old Cheque Bounce Case Signature Alone Doesn’t Prove Debt: Kerala High Court Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Bounce Case, Rejects Blanket Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act Justice Cannot Be Left to Guesswork: Supreme Court Mandates Structured Judgments in Criminal Trials Across India Truth Must Be Proven Beyond Doubt—Not Built On Flawed FIRs, Tainted Witnesses And Investigative Gaps: Supreme Court Acquits Man in POCSO Rape-Murder Case Once parties agree and reconciliation is impossible, a fault-based decree is unnecessary: Supreme Court Sets Aside Divorce on Desertion No Escape from Statutory Ceiling: Exclusive Expenditure by Foreign Head Offices Also Attracts Section 44C Income Tax: Supreme Court Loss Of A Child Cannot Be Calculated In Rupees, But Law Must At Least Offer Dignity In Compensation: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation Sessions Court Cannot Direct Life Imprisonment Till Natural Life Without Remission: Supreme Court Reasserts Limits on Sentencing Powers of Subordinate Courts ‘Continuously Means Without a Single Break’: Supreme Court Bars Expired-and-Renewed Licences From Police Driver Recruitment Chief Justice’s Power Under Section 51(3) Is Independent and Continuing: Supreme Court Upholds Kolhapur Bench Notification Last Seen Evidence Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case No Cultivation on Forest Land Without Central Clearance: Supreme Court Cancels Lease Over 134 Acres, Orders Reforestation Appointment from Rank List Must Respect Communal Rotation: SC Declines Claim of SC Waitlisted Candidate After Resignation of Appointee Supreme Court Dissolves 20-Year Estranged Marriage Under Article 142 Despite Wife’s Objection Murder Inside Temple Cannot Be Treated Lightly: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Father-Son Convicts in Group Killing Case

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