Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kusum vs State Of Haryana And Others on 13 January, 2026
CWP-34823-2025 1 2025:PHHC.005781 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.117 CWP-34823-2025 Date of Decision: 13.01.2026 Kusum .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. Rishi Lal, Advocate, for Mr. Ajit Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (ORAL)
The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reimburse the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner on treatment amounting €10,57,410.
2. Learned State counsel, on instructions, contended that the petitioner was treated at Medanta Hospital, Medicity Gurugram, from 19.02.2024 to 03.03.2024. In terms of the reimbursement policy, dated 14.07.2020, Annexure P-8, the Government is required to reimburse medical expenses as per the fixed package rates mentioned therein. In this regard, she has referred to paragraph 2 (a) (ii) of the policy, which is as under:
2. Guidelines for Implementing Package/Implant Rates
(a) The State Government has categorized private approved hospitals and private medical colleges for the purpose of implementing package rates, which are explained as under:-
(ij) Xxx Xxx Gi) All the State Government empanelled private hospitals MANINDER 2026.01.21 18:10 . .
authentity is and and medical colleges will charge from the employees as per the order/judgment CWP-34823-2025 2 2025:PHHC.005781 fixed package/implant rates mentioned in Annexure-I & II and these will be fully reimbursable to the employees/pensioners and their dependents and/or to the private approved hospitals/medical colleges for providing medical facility on cashless basis, as the case may be.
2.1. The petitioner also submitted medical claim in terms of the policy amounting to ¥3,81,312, which had been duly approved by the School Principal as well as District Education officer (DEO), as appended with the petitioner's affidavit dated 13.08.2024, Annexure P-7. The claimed amount was duly reimbursed to her vide order dated 02.09.2024.
2.2. She further contended that on considering the petitioner's claim for reimbursement of total medical expenses incurred on the treatment, the Department was of the view that she had been overcharged by the Medanta Hospital in excess of the package rates. Accordingly, vide letter dated 18.06.2024, Annexure P-5, original bills were sent to the concerned hospital for revision strictly in accordance with the Health Department policy, dated 14.07.2020, and to refund the excess amount charged from the petitioner. The hospital responded vide letter dated 12.07.2024, Annexure P-6, which is to the following effect:
Since patient's next of kin, who had done the admission formalities voluntarily declared that "I am not beneficiary of CGHS/ECHS/Haryana/any other Government discounted scheme and am opting for admission for treatment as per Medanta Rates' (Attached Annexure 1- declaration signed by her husband Mr. Jasbir Singh); based on the declaration by next of kin, the patient was admitted as a self-pay cash patient.
As per our records, documentation pertaining to being a beneficiary of Haryana Government Scheme were not submitted at the time of admission or during stay in the hospital. The patient's relative opted for hospital (GHL) rates for treatment of the patient.MANINDER 2026.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
CWP-34823-2025 3 2028:PHHC:065781 @ § meres In these circumstances, the Department is not able to reimburse the total medical expenses claimed by the petitioner.
3. Considering the facts aforementioned, this Court is of the view that the petition cannot be entertained for the reason the petitioner herself failed to claim the benefit she is entitled to being a government employee, that is, treatment under the package policy from the Medanta Hospital. The hospital, therefore, admitted her as self-pay cash patient and charged accordingly. Excess payment, if any, has been charged only by the hospital concerned, which has not been impleaded as party to the petition.
4. In view thereof, there is no ground to entertain the petition, and it stands dismissed, leaving it open for the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings against the hospital, in accordance with law, if so advised.
(TRIBHUVAN DAHTYA) JUDGE 13.01.2026 Maninder Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MANINDER 2026.01.21 18:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment