Chandigarh, Aug. 24 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court has asserted that the government can't deny reimbursement for medical treatment from a non-empanelled hospital given the employee is able to establish essentiality and emergency involved in a particular case. ".the state bears an obligation to ensure the availability of timely medical care to those in need. As such, it cannot expect the citizens to refrain from availing timely care, merely for the reason of non-empanellment of the hospital. Such conduct on the part of the state does not satisfy the criteria of fairness and reasonableness and therefore, amounts to a violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India," the bench of justice HS Brar observed while dealing with a petition filed by an employee from Haryana. The court said that the claim for medical reimbursement ought not to be dismissed merely because the patient underwent treatment in a non-empanelled hospital. "In such cases, the test of essentiality and emergency comes into play, which dictates that if the medical procedure was undergone by the claimant in an emergency, on the advice of a doctor based on his medical record, in order to save his life, the reimbursement for the same must be made. Not only is the preservation of human life instinctive, but it also forms a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, it shall always retain the highest priority," the court further added. The petition was from an employee of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (DHBVNL), whose wife got admitted at a hospital in Dehradun which was not empanelled with the nigam. He had also submitted an emergency admission certificate and details of an expenditure ofRs.1.33 lakh incurred for safe delivery and neonatal care of the newborn child as well as the necessary care of the petitioner's wife. However, reimbursement was denied citing the reason that the hospital was not empanelled with the nigam.He was sanctioned onlyRs.12,000 by the nigam. The court dismissed the plea observing that it can sympathise with the fact that in cases of emergency, the patient or his relatives do not have the luxury to verify the empanellment status of hospitals, in order to claim medical reimbursement, but the test of essentiality and emergency must be satisfied. "..nothing on the record indicates that the petitioner's wife was admitted and the child was delivered under circumstances that required immediate medical attention in order to save the life of the mother and the child. . Although the delivery was through a cesarean section, the same happened at the expected date after 35 weeks of pregnancy. The matter at hand is neither a case of premature delivery nor fetal distress," it said dismissing the plea and holding that the test of essentiality and emergency needed to be satisfied in cases where the employee chose a non-empanelled hospital for treatment....