Self Preservation

Self Preservation – Right to Life - Garuda Purana

Chapter 16 of Garuda Purana teaches us benefit of birth as human being, as an account of the law for liberation. As right to self-preservation is part of right to life. Question arises that whether self-preservation is necessary concomitant of right to life. Held – Yes - Self preservation of one's life is the necessary concomitant of the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, fundamental in nature, sacred precious and inviolable. In the famous case of Medical reimbursement, Surjit Singh vs. State Of Punjab And Others 1996 AIR 1388, 1996(1) SCR1095, 1996(2)SCC 336, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Chapter 16 of the Garuda Purana (A Dialogue suggested between the Divine and Garuda, the bird) in the words of the Divine:

Sloka No. 17 - Without the body how can obtain the objects of human life? Therefore protecting body which is the wealth, one should perform the deeds of merit.

18 - One should protect his body, which is responsible for everything. He, who protects himself by all efforts, will see many auspicious occasions in life.

20 - The wise always undertake the protective measures for the body. Even the persons suffering from leprosy and other diseases do not wish to get rid of the body.

22 - If one does not prevent what is unpleasant to himself, who else will do it? Therefore one should do what is good to himself.

The appellant therefore had the right to take steps in self-preservation; He did not have to stand in queue before the Medical Board the manning and assembling of which, bare- facedly, makes its meetings difficult to happen. The appellant also did not have to stand in queue in the government hospital of AIIMS and could go elsewhere to an alternate hospital as per policy. When the State itself has brought the Escorts on the recognised list, it is futile for it to contend that the appellant could in no event have gone to the Escorts and his claim cannot on that basis be allowed, on suppositions. We think to the contrary. In the facts and circumstances, had the appellant remained in India, he could have gone to the Escorts like many others did, to save his life. But instead he has done that in London incurring considerable expense. The doctors causing his operation there are presumed to have done so as one essential and timely. On that hypothesis, it is fair and just that the respondents pay to the appellant the rates admissible as per Escorts. The claim of the appellant having been found valid in the affirmative. Let the difference be paid to the appellant within two months positively. Hence the hypothetical claim of the appellant for medical reimbursement was held valid according to the abovesaid facts.