http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI JASBIR SINGH

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       12/02/1999

BENCH: M.Srinivasan, S.N.Phukan,

JUDGMENT:

DER         Leave granted.

       The respondent’s son had problem of  growth  in  his height which was, in medical terms, attributed to disease of pituitary glands.   Injection Norditropin was prescribed for treatment.  The claim of the respondent for reimbursement of the medical  expenses  incurred  on  purchase  of  the  said injection to the tune of Rs.  3,13,200/- was rejected by the appellant Board.    The  respondent, thereupon, filed a writ petition seeking a direction for reimbursement of  the  said amount with  interest  in the High Court.  The writ petition was resisted primarily on the ground that the policy of  the Board was not to reimburse expenses on "imported medicines".

       The High Court noticed that the drug in question was not  available  in  India  and that the same was an imported drug.  The High Court, however, allowed  the  writ  petition observing  that  the  respondent’s son had a serious problem and that since the imported drug had been duly prescribed by the  doctor  at  the  Post  Graduate  Institute  of  Medical Sciences,  Chandigarh  the  respondent  was  entitled  to be reimbursed for  the  expenses  incurred  in  purchasing  the imported drug.  The Bench observed:

               "In  fact,  instances  are not lacking were            people have gone abroad for  treatment  and  the            expenses have  been  paid by the State.  Surely,            if a particular medicine  is  not  available  in            India  and  has to be imported, nobody can help.            A poor patient has to import  the  medicine  and            take it.  This is precisely what appears to have            happened in  the present case.  Still further no            reason  whatsoever  has  been  advanced  in  the            written statement to indicate as to why a person            is  not  entitled  to  reimbursement of expenses            incurred by him on  account  of  the  import  of            medicine.   It can be imagined that if a drug is            available in India and yet a person  chooses  to            import  a  particular  medicine and spends money            which is avoidable, the competent authority  may            take  the  view that no re-imbursement should be            allowed or that it should  be  confined  to  the            expense which the patient would have incurred on            getting the  drug  within the country.  However,            it is not even suggested  in  the  present  case            that the  drug is available in India.  In such a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

          situation, it appears fair to assume  that  this            life saving drug had to be imported.  That being            so,  there  would  be  no  reasonable  basis for            declining to reimburse the expenses."

       Aggrieved by the direction issued by the High  Court to  re-imburse  the amount together with interest, the Board is in appeal by special leave.

       We have heard learned counsel for  the  parties  and examined the record.

       It  is  an  admitted  case  of  the parties that the policy of the Government  of  India,  which  has  also  been adopted by the Govt.  of Punjab and the Board, is that where the  drugs manufactured in India have proved ineffective and the prescription  of  some  imported  life  saving  drug  is imperative for "saving the life of the patient", such a drug can  be  prescribed  and  the  patient  can procure the same either  by  placing  an  order  with  the  foreign  firm  or otherwise  and  when  that  is  done  and the certificate is issued by the Chief Medical Officer of the  District/Medical Superintendent  of  the  hospital  to  the effect that he is satisfied that the drug in question is considered absolutely essential to "save the life of the  patient",  reimbursement of  costs  of  the  drug,  excluding  the packaging charges, customs duty from charges etc.  is permissible.    The  High Court,  however,  appears  to  have assumed that the drug in question was a "life saving drug".  The  certificate  issued by   the   Post  Graduate  Institute  of  Medical  Sciences, Chandigarh which is available on  the  record  at  page  32, shows   that  the  disease  was  not  life  threatening  and Norditropin injection is "not a  life  saving  drug".    The submission  of learned counsel for the respondent that since the son of the  respondent  was  suffering  from  a  chronic disease,  he  was  entitled  to reimbursement of the medical expenses including the expenses  incurred  on  the  imported medicine  on  the  basis  of the instructions dated 1.1.1991 does not appear to be correct.  A  careful  perusal  of  the instructions  dated  1.1.91 shows that it only lists certain chronic diseases, the treatment for which can be done either as an out-door patient i.e.  without being admitted  in  the hospital or  by  admission  in the hospital.  Vide para 2 of those instructions, no reimbursement limit has been fixed as an out-door patient for the employees and pensioners of  the State Governments.    These  general  instructions, however, have  to  be  read  along  with  the  specific  instructions contained  in  the  Government  of  India instructions dated 21.7.1972 and the instructions issued by the Board  in  1997 declaring  as  a  policy  of the Board that reimbursement of imported drug shall be permitted  only  where  the  imported drug is a "life saving drug".  It becomes obvious from joint reading  of  various instructions (supra) that reimbursement of the drugs, whether imported by  the  patient  himself  or purchased  from  a  chemist who has imported those drugs, is permissible only where the imported drug  is  considered  as absolutely essential  to "save the life of the patient".  It is not in dispute that the drug in  question  was  essential for "saving  the  life of the patient".  That the disease of the patient was a "chronic disease" does not  mean  that  it was   "life   threatening"   in   view  of  the  unambiguous certificate issued by the PGI, as referred to  above.    The Board  was,  therefore,  perfectly justified on the basis of instructions referred to above and its policy  decision,  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

decline  to  reimburse  the medical expenses incurred on the purchase of the imported drug Norditropin, being not a "life saving drug".  Since, the High  Court  wrongly  assumed  the drug  to be a "life saving drug" it clearly fell in error in issuing the direction for reimbursement of the amount.   The judgment of the High Court under the circumstances cannot be sustained.

       This appeal, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. The writ  petition, filed before the High Court shall stand dismissed. No costs.