As per case facts, the petitioner, a retired Assistant Engineer, sought complete medical reimbursement for an urgent liver and kidney transplantation. After being diagnosed with kidney and liver ailments, he ... underwent surgery at a private hospital in Bangalore when a cadaver donor became available, as other empanelled hospitals could not provide a donor. The State partially reimbursed his expenses, adhering to a policy that limits reimbursement to AIIMS rates. The petitioner approached the Court seeking full reimbursement. The question arose whether the State’s medical reimbursement policy could deny full expenses for life-saving surgery undertaken in an emergency at a non-empanelled hospital when a donor was critically available. Finally, the Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, ruled that medical reimbursement is an enforceable right. It held that the policy must be interpreted purposively and with human compassion, especially in emergency and life-threatening situations where the choice of hospital is not practical. The Court allowed the writ petition, directing full reimbursement.