In Prahlad Sahai v Haryana Roadways & Anr. (2026 INSC 396), India’s Supreme Court rejected the use of very low government-notified prosthetic rates when calculating motor-accident compensation. The insurer had pointed to a 2024 notification suggesting prices of around ₹20,000–25,000; the Court found these inadequate.
Instead, it assessed the claimant’s lifetime needs: a five-year working life per prosthesis and an assumed lifespan of 70, meaning seven devices. It awarded ₹3 lakh per prosthesis plus ₹5 lakh for lifetime maintenance, ₹26 lakh in total under that head. The Court also stressed that a cheaper alternative does not defeat a claim if the chosen provision is clinically reasonable.
The ruling applies directly to motor-accident claims, not to every amputee. But it sets out principles that insurers, tribunals, hospitals and prosthetists will now work with.
Deliberate perspective
For manufacturers and distributors, this is a reimbursement signal. When a court recognises replacement cycles, maintenance and clinically appropriate components, the value of evidence rises:
- Clinical justification: documentation linking device choice to function, occupation and outcomes will carry more weight in claims
- Lifetime cost models: suppliers that can show service life, maintenance needs and total cost of ownership will be better placed with insurers and tribunals
- Positioning: mid-range and premium components gain a clearer route to funding where the claim is reasonable for the user’s needs
Market entry in India is often framed around price. Rulings like this show why reimbursement mapping and payer strategy belong in the plan from day one.
Read the full article on Bharat CPO.
