A Landmark Judgment Upholding the Right to Life and Medical Dignity of Pensioners
In a significant judgment reinforcing the constitutional right to life and healthcare, the Bombay High Court directed the Union of India and the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) to fully reimburse a retired Central Government pensioner for a life-saving heart transplant surgery. The ruling strongly criticized the authorities for adopting a narrow, technical, and outdated approach in denying legitimate medical reimbursement for an emergency and extraordinary medical procedure.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Anirudh Prataprai Nansi, a senior citizen and voluntarily retired Central Government employee from Mumbai, underwent a heart transplant surgery in December 2020 at Sir HN Reliance Foundation Hospital.
Key facts:
- Total medical expenditure incurred: ₹29,96,020
- Amount reimbursed by CGHS: ₹1,60,805
- Basis of reimbursement: Outdated CGHS Mumbai package rates
- At the relevant time, no CGHS-empanelled hospital in Mumbai had heart transplant facilities
The denial of full reimbursement was made by the High Power Committee (HPC) under CGHS, which categorized the surgery as a “planned procedure” and therefore refused to relax reimbursement norms.
Core Legal Issue
The central question before the court was:
Can a heart transplant surgery—critical, extraordinary, and life-saving in nature—be treated as a “planned surgery” to deny full medical reimbursement under CGHS rules?
Additionally, the court examined whether rigid application of CGHS package rates could override constitutional guarantees when life-saving treatment is involved.
Observations of the Bombay High Court
A Division Bench comprising Justice Girish Kulkarni and Justice Advait Sethna rejected the reasoning of the CGHS authorities and made several important observations:
1. Heart Transplant Is Not an Ordinary or Planned Surgery
The Court categorically held that:
- A heart transplant is an extraordinary, emergent, and inevitable medical procedure
- It cannot be equated with routine or elective surgeries
- Describing it as “planned” reflects a complete lack of medical and humanitarian understanding
The Court observed that it failed to understand how such a life-saving procedure could ever be treated as non-emergent.
2. Mechanical Application of CGHS Rules Is Unacceptable
The Court strongly criticized the HPC’s bureaucratic and mechanical approach, stating that:
- The decision was taken in a routine and mundane manner
- The petitioner was not properly heard despite earlier court directions
- Outdated CGHS rates were blindly applied without considering medical reality
The respondents did not dispute:
- The genuineness of the medical condition
- The authenticity of the medical bills
- The necessity of the surgery
3. Right to Life Under Article 21
The judgment emphatically linked medical reimbursement with Article 21 of the Constitution of India, observing that:
- Denial of full reimbursement for life-saving treatment violates the fundamental Right to Life
- Healthcare is an essential component of human dignity
- A patient has the right to choose a private hospital when government or empanelled facilities are unavailable
The Court noted that refusal of reimbursement strikes at the very essence of basic human rights.
Final Directions of the Court
The Bombay High Court:
- Allowed the writ petition
- Directed the Union of India and CGHS to fully reimburse the petitioner for the heart transplant surgery
- Held that the denial of reimbursement was illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional
Significance of the Judgment
This judgment has far-reaching implications:
✔ For Pensioners and CGHS Beneficiaries
- Establishes that life-saving treatment cannot be denied reimbursement on technical grounds
- Provides strong legal backing for pensioners facing similar denial of medical claims
✔ For Administrative Authorities
- Warns against rigid, inhuman application of service rules
- Reinforces the duty to act with compassion, reason, and constitutional sensitivity
✔ For Healthcare Jurisprudence
- Strengthens judicial recognition of healthcare as a fundamental right
- Reaffirms that financial constraints cannot override the right to life
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court’s ruling is a powerful reminder that rules exist to serve people—not to defeat justice. By prioritizing human life over outdated procedures and bureaucratic rigidity, the Court upheld not just the law, but the spirit of the Constitution.
This judgment stands as a landmark precedent protecting the medical and financial dignity of pensioners and reinforces that no individual should be punished for choosing life when survival is at stake.
I
