The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi government to reimburse Rs 11.83 lakh spent on the treatment of a journalist’s wife at private hospitals after a government hospital was unable to provide the required facility during the COVID-19 pandemic.
A bench of Justice Amit Mahajan passed the order on a petition filed by journalist Ravinder Gupta, who sought reimbursement for treatment received by his wife at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and Sir Ganga Ram City Hospital. The court set aside the rejection of his claim and directed the Delhi government to release the amount within eight weeks.
The case concerned treatment arranged after government hospitals in Delhi were designated as COVID-19 facilities. Gupta’s wife required urgent surgery, and on August 4, 2021, GB Pant Hospital referred her to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital because the necessary facility was not available there.
Gupta, a journalist recognised by the Delhi government, sought reimbursement under the Delhi Press Reporters and Medical Assistance Rules, 1955. He relied on Rule 7, which permits recognised journalists and their family members to receive treatment at empanelled private hospitals in emergency situations.
The Delhi government had rejected the claim. The director of health services stated in a decision dated July 21, 2025, that the surgery did not qualify as an emergency under the applicable rules. The government also argued that reimbursement under the rules could be granted for private treatment when government hospitals were affected by a strike, but not in the circumstances presented by the petition.
The High Court rejected that distinction. It held that a government hospital being declared a COVID-19 hospital could similarly prevent ordinary patients from receiving regular medical services. In such circumstances, the court said, the government could not deny reimbursement when a patient had to be shifted to a private hospital for treatment.
The order addresses the administrative consequences of emergency health planning during the pandemic. When public hospitals were converted into dedicated COVID-19 facilities, patients requiring other forms of treatment had to depend on private hospitals or alternative public facilities. The court’s decision applies that practical situation to the interpretation of the reimbursement rules in the case before it.
The amount ordered for reimbursement represents the remaining treatment expenditure claimed by Gupta for his wife’s care at the two private hospitals. The court also quashed the rejection letter issued by the health authorities.
The Delhi government is required to complete the reimbursement within eight weeks of the High Court’s order. The ruling does not alter the text of the 1955 rules, but establishes how the court has interpreted access to reimbursement when public hospital capacity is diverted during a public health emergency.
