Case Summary: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors. (2025) | Cashless Treatment Scheme for Road Accident Victims
The case of S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors. highlights the urgent need for effective systems to ensure timely medical aid for road accident victims.
The judgment serves as a vital reminder of the intersection between statutory obligations and constitutional rights, emphasizing the State's duty to safeguard human lives.
Title of the Case: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors. (2025)
Citation: Writ Petition (C) No. 295 of 2012
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
Judgment Date: January 8, 2025
Background
The petition revolves around the critical need for implementing the "golden hour" provisions under the MV Act. Section 162 of the Act, introduced on April 1, 2022, mandates a scheme for cashless treatment of road accident victims during the "golden hour" — the first hour after a traumatic injury, considered crucial for saving lives. Despite this provision, no actionable scheme had been introduced by the Central Government, prompting judicial intervention.
The Court emphasized that denying timely medical treatment during the golden hour violates the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Furthermore, the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund, constituted under Section 164-B, was established to finance this initiative but remains underutilized in the absence of a proper scheme.
Key Issues
- Whether the Central Government fulfilled its statutory obligation under Section 162 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by framing a scheme for cashless treatment of road accident victims during the golden hour.
- Whether the proposed draft concept note adequately addresses the financial and temporal needs for providing cashless treatment to accident victims.
- Whether the establishment and utilization of the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund under Section 164-B have been effectively implemented to support accident victims.
- Whether the delays in processing claims under the hit-and-run scheme are attributable to procedural inefficiencies or documentation deficiencies.
- Whether the General Insurance Corporation (GIC) has made sufficient progress in developing an online portal to streamline the claim settlement process.
Key Provisions Highlighted
162 of the MV Act:
- Obligates the Central Government to create a scheme for cashless treatment of road accident victims.
- Allows for the creation of a fund to ensure financial support for such treatment.
Section 164-B of the MV Act:
- Constitutes the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund to provide:
- Compulsory insurance for all road users.
- Compensation for hit-and-run victims.
- Coverage for cashless treatment during the golden hour.
- Details sources of funding and mechanisms for disbursement.
Central Motor Vehicles (Motor Vehicle Accident Fund) Rules, 2022:
- Governs the fund's utilization.
- Provides mechanisms for disbursement under Rule 12 for cashless treatment.
Court Observations
Importance of the Golden Hour:
Highlighted the definition under Section 2(12-A), emphasizing that timely medical intervention during the first hour after an accident can significantly reduce fatalities.
Recalled the precedent set in Parmanand Katara v. Union of India & Ors. (1989), where the Court mandated that medical aid must not be delayed for procedural reasons.
Barriers to Implementation:
Hospitals often delay treatment due to concerns over payment and procedural formalities, such as waiting for police authorization.
Lack of a comprehensive scheme under Section 162(2) hampers the effective utilization of the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund.
Draft Concept Note:
A concept note prepared by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways proposed:
- A maximum treatment cap of ₹1,50,000.
- Treatment coverage limited to seven days.
- The Court found these provisions inadequate, urging the government to address these concerns.
Directives Issued
Framing of Scheme:
The Central Government was directed to frame the scheme under Section 162(2) by March 14, 2025, and place it on record by March 21, 2025.
Pending Hit-and-Run Claims:
- Observed that 1,026 claims under the hit-and-run scheme remained pending as of August 31, 2024, despite compensation being provided to 1,662 claimants.
- Directed the General Insurance Corporation (GIC) to clear deficiencies in pending claims and process them promptly.
Document Requirements:
Listed seven documents required for processing claims, including FIR, injury/death report, and bank account details of claimants.
Development of Digital Portal:
Instructed GIC to expedite the creation of a digital portal to facilitate claim processing and address document deficiencies. Compliance was to be reported by March 14, 2025.
Legal Significance
- Right to Life under Article 21: The judgment reaffirms the constitutional mandate to preserve life through timely medical aid, asserting that procedural delays or financial barriers cannot supersede this right.
- Statutory Obligation: Stressed the binding nature of Sections 162 and 164-B, making it obligatory for the government to ensure cashless treatment during the golden hour.
- Institutional Accountability: Highlighted the role of GIC and the Central Government in implementing the statutory framework, emphasizing that bureaucratic inertia cannot justify delays.
Future Implications
- Improved Emergency Response: The implementation of a cashless treatment scheme will significantly enhance emergency medical response for road accident victims.
- Streamlined Compensation Mechanisms: A robust digital portal will facilitate efficient claim processing, reducing delays and enhancing transparency.
- Precedent for Policy Implementation: This case sets a strong precedent for judicial intervention in enforcing statutory obligations and ensuring timely policy execution.
Conclusion
The Court's directives in S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors. aim to bridge the gap between legislative intent and practical implementation. By enforcing the framing of a cashless treatment scheme and streamlining claim settlement processes, the judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding the fundamental right to life. The upcoming compliance report on March 24, 2025, will determine the extent to which these directives have been realized.
Click Here to Read the Official Judgment
Important Link
