Region: Asia
Year: 1998
Court: High Court - Madras
Health Topics: Health care and health services, Health systems and financing
Human Rights: Right to health, Right to life
Tags: Access to treatment, Health expenditures, Health funding, Health insurance, Subsidies
The Central Government amended Rule 50 of the Employees’ State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 (the Rule) and increased the wage limit for insurance coverage of employees from Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 6,500.
A writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution (original writ jurisdiction of High Courts) challenging the amendment on the ground that the wage limit was increased to “recover the difference in costs incurred by the Corporation for service already rendered to the existing employees”, which, it was contended, negated the right to health. It was also argued that compulsory insurance impinged upon individuals’ right to choose and plan their health care as they saw fit.
The issue before the Court was thus whether increasing the wage limit for insurance coverage infringed an individuals’ right to health and life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Court rejected the argument that the purpose of increasing the wage limit was to recover the difference in costs as alleged by the Petitioner. The Court instead held that the amendment was welfare oriented. It upheld the amendment as being in the “best interests of the employees to make the life of the worker meaningful and livable with human dignity.” The Court further held that the amendment extended proper health care to more workmen and was in consonance with the right to life in Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court also rejected the argument that compulsory insurance negated individuals’ right to choose and plan their health care. It held that in State welfare schemes, over all social benefits were to be given priority rather than individual preferences.
“[T]he Scheme framed thereunder has been accepted and upheld by the Courts in our country to be welfare-oriented and in the best interests of the employees to make the life of the worker meaningful and livable with human dignity . . .” Para. 5.
“In judging the requirements of social justice and the utility of the welfare schemes formulated and enforced by the State, individual likes or dislikes or choice has no place whatsoever and what is required to be considered is the overall needs and calls of the society for whose benefit the scheme is envisaged for being enforced.” Para. 5.