Supreme Court Panel Retains ₹1.5L Cap for Road Accident Victims' Golden Hour Treatment
Contents4
Hindustan Times - India · 10 Apr 2026 · 2 min read
Prelims · Polity Mains · GS2 Governance High relevance
A Supreme Court committee recommends maintaining the ₹1.5 lakh cap for cashless treatment of road accident victims during the golden hour, citing the scheme's nascent stage and need for implementation feedback.
Key points
Golden Hour Scheme: The cashless treatment scheme during the first hour post-accident was notified by the Centre in February 2026, with a ₹1.5 lakh cap for treatment up to seven days.
Judicial Oversight: The Supreme Court committee, headed by Justice (retd) Abhay Manohar Sapre, was tasked with reviewing the cap's adequacy and potential removal.
Implementation Phase: The committee advised retaining the cap for now, emphasizing the need for six months to one year of state-level implementation data before reconsideration.
Stakeholder Concerns: The General Insurance Council warned that removing the cap could make the scheme unviable and prone to misuse, while petitioner Kishan Chand Jain advocated for removing limits for critical cases.
Pilot Study Findings: MoRTH cited data from six states/UTs showing 98% of victims incurred costs under ₹60,000, with only 1.36% approaching the ₹1.5 lakh limit.
Legal Framework: The scheme operates under Section 162 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which mandates emergency treatment for accident victims.
[GS2-Governance] This connects to public health infrastructure and emergency care governance, highlighting the balance between fiscal prudence and right to healthcare.
[GS3-Economy] The fiscal implications of uncapped treatment costs could strain state resources, requiring careful economic analysis of scheme sustainability.
Way Forward: India should establish real-time monitoring mechanisms for scheme utilization, integrate government hospital networks for cost-effective care, and develop anti-fraud measures while ensuring no genuine victim is denied treatment.
Key terms
- Section 162 of Motor Vehicles Act
- A legal provision mandating cashless treatment for road accident victims during emergency care. Its UPSC relevance lies in the intersection of transport policy, health rights, and fiscal governance in welfare schemes.
- Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety
- A judicial body constituted to oversee implementation of road safety measures in India. Its recommendations carry weight in policy formulation, exemplifying judicial activism in governance reforms.
- General Insurance Council
- The apex body of non-life insurers in India that coordinates industry practices. For UPSC, it represents the institutional framework for implementing public-private partnerships in social security schemes.
- Golden Hour
- The critical first hour after a traumatic injury where prompt medical treatment significantly improves survival rates. For UPSC, this concept is vital in public health policy and road safety governance, linking to SDG targets on reducing road accident deaths.
Practice question
Critically examine the rationale behind retaining the ₹1.5 lakh cap for cashless treatment of road accident victims during the golden hour, as recommended by the Supreme Court committee. Discuss the implications of this decision. (250 words, 15 marks)
GS2 15 marks 250 words Mains
Key terms to include: Golden Hour Section 162 of Motor Vehicles Act Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety General Insurance Council Cashless treatment Fiscal prudence Public health infrastructure Judicial oversight
Answer framework
Introduction
Briefly introduce the Golden Hour Scheme under Section 162 of the Motor Vehicles Act, mentioning its objective to provide cashless treatment during the critical first hour post-accident.
Rationale for retaining the cap
Nascent stage of scheme implementation requiring feedback
Pilot data from 6 states showing 98% cases below ₹60,000
Concerns about scheme viability and potential misuse raised by General Insurance Council
Positive implications
Ensures fiscal sustainability of the scheme
Provides time to gather implementation data for evidence-based policy revision
Balances right to healthcare with financial prudence
Negative implications
May limit access to advanced treatments for severe cases
Potential denial of care if costs exceed cap in critical situations
Delays comprehensive emergency care infrastructure development
Way forward
Establish real-time monitoring mechanisms for scheme utilization
Integrate government hospital networks for cost-effective care
Develop anti-fraud measures while ensuring no genuine victim is denied treatment
Conclusion
Suggest a balanced approach that maintains the cap temporarily while strengthening monitoring systems and healthcare infrastructure to eventually phase out limits for critical cases.
Fact check
Issues found Overall severity: low
The cashless treatment scheme during the first hour post-accident was notified by the Centre in February 2026, with a ₹1.5 lakh cap for treatment up to seven days.
The source text states the scheme was notified in February of the current year (2026), but does not specify the exact date. The claim is accurate but slightly more precise than the source. Severity: low
The Supreme Court committee, headed by Justice (retd) Abhay Manohar Sapre, was tasked with reviewing the cap's adequacy and potential removal.
The source confirms the committee was headed by Justice (retd) Abhay Manohar Sapre and was tasked with reviewing the cap, but does not explicitly mention 'potential removal' as part of the review terms. Severity: low
The committee advised retaining the cap for now, emphasizing the need for six months to one year of state-level implementation data before reconsideration.
The source text supports this claim, stating the committee recommended waiting for feedback from states over the next six months to one year before revising the cap. Severity: none
The General Insurance Council warned that removing the cap could make the scheme unviable and prone to misuse, while petitioner Kishan Chand Jain advocated for removing limits for critical cases.
The source text confirms these positions from both the General Insurance Council and petitioner Kishan Chand Jain. Severity: none
MoRTH cited data from six states/UTs showing 98% of victims incurred costs under ₹60,000, with only 1.36% approaching the ₹1.5 lakh limit.
The source text confirms this data from MoRTH's pilot study in six states/UTs. Severity: none
The scheme operates under Section 162 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which mandates emergency treatment for accident victims.
The source text confirms the scheme operates under Section 162 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Severity: none