SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITY FOR CASHLESS TREATMENT IN MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS
SUPREME COURT CLARIFIES STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITY FOR CASHLESS TREATMENT IN MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS
Introduction
Facts of the Case
The Judgment in the Case of S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (C) No. 295 of 2012) was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, on January 8, 2025. This case mainly addresses the crucial issue of cashless treatment for victims of motor vehicle accidents. The Supreme Court deliberated on Section 162 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act), which came into force on April 1, 2022. This section mandates the creation of a scheme by the Central Government for the cashless treatment of accident victims during the “golden hour,” defined as the first hour following a traumatic injury when prompt medical care can prevent death.
Issues
The main issues in this case were:
- Whether the Central Government had fulfilled its statutory obligation under Section 162(2) of the MV Act to frame a scheme for cashless treatment during the golden hour
- Whether the draft concept note submitted by the Central Government adequately addressed the needs of accident victims.
Petitioner Contentions
The learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the absence of a scheme under Section 162 violated the statutory and constitutional duty to protect the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. He also raised concerns about the draft concept note, which proposed a maximum financial limit of ₹1,50,000 for treatment and restricted treatment duration to seven days. These provisions, according to the Petitioner, were inadequate to achieve the objective of saving lives during the golden hour.
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the Central Government had failed to fulfill its statutory duty to frame a scheme under Section 162(2) of the MV Act, despite more than sufficient time since the enactment of the provision. The Court observed that the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund, established under Section 164-B, along with the Central Motor Vehicles (Motor Vehicle Accident Fund) Rules 2022, provided a framework for the disbursement of funds for cashless treatment. However, without a formal scheme, the statutory intent remained unfulfilled. The Court emphasized that the scheme must address the concerns raised, such as treatment costs and duration, to ensure the effective implementation of cashless treatment during the golden hour.
Conclusion
The case underscores the critical need for immediate medical care for motor accident victims during the golden hour and the statutory responsibility of the Central Government to provide for cashless treatment through a formal scheme. The judgment reiterates the importance of protecting the right to life and ensuring timely medical assistance for accident victims, thereby fulfilling both statutory and constitutional obligations.
PARICHAYA
LEGAL ASSOCIATE
THE INDIAN LAWYER & ALLIED SERVICES
Please log on to our YouTube channel The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips and learn about different aspects of the law. Our latest video is on “Understanding Lease Agreement” that may be viewed on the link below:
Leave a Reply