Delhi

StateCommission

A/125/2017

HARDEV SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

S.S HORA

18 Apr 2017

ORDER

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments : 18.04.2017

Date of Decision : 24.04.2017

Appeal No.125/2017

 

(Arising out of the order dated 06.01.2017 passed in Complaint Case No. 153/2015   by the

District Consumer Redressal Forum-.Kashmere Gate)

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Shri Hardev Singh,

S/o Late Shri Gian Singh,

Resident of HL-29,

L-Block, Hari Nagar,

New Delhi-110064.                                                                            ........Complainant

 

VERSUS

 

1. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.,

Acting through Manager-HR

Having office at BSES Bhawan,

Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.

 

2. Delhi Vidyut Board Employees Terminal Benefits

Funds 2002 (Pension Trust)

Medical Reimbursement Cell,

Rajghat Power House,

New Delhi-110002.                                               …….…Opp. Parties

 

CORAM

 

SH. O. P. GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                     Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                           Yes/No

 

Present :  Sh. S.S. Hora, Counsel for the Appellant        

PER : SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

          Aggrieved by the order dated 06.01.2017 passed by the District Forum–Kashmere Gate dismissing the complaint, rejecting the claim of the complainant for reimbursement of the expenses done for obtaining medical treatment from the hospital otherwise not empanelled for the employees of the BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd., an appeal has been filed in this Commission.

          Facts of the case are these.

          Sh. Harev Singh an employee of Delhi Vidyut Board is enrolled for treatment for self and for his wife for availing medical benefits from the government empanelled dispensaries and hospitals. The complainant has alleged that on 05.06.2012 he was detected protest cancer, requiring examination & tests.  According to him since there was emergency he was compelled to receive treatment from Adiva North Point Hospital.  For this purpose, the complainant got himself admitted on 12.06.2012 for evaluation of high PSA and prostatomegaly.  He has also taken treatment from M/s.BL Kapoor Multi Speciality Hospital.  Expenses incurred by him at both the hospitals were not incurred by him.  Subsequently, he submitted the bills for reimbursement for expenses incurred by him.  His bills were not reimbursed. Consequently, alleging deficiency, on the part of OP-1 & 2 he had filed the complaint before District Forum praying for reimbursement of the requisite amount. The OPs had contested the matter and submitted that they had refused the reimbursement on the ground that complainant had taken treatment from non-empanelled hospital of his own. The District Forum had dismissed the complaint case holding as under :-

        “We have heard the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the record.  It is admitted by the complainant that he was an ex-employee of DVB and is getting benefits of the reimbursement of medical expenses from OP-2 under the rules frames from time to time by it.  In the present case as per the complainant he was detected as a case of prostate cancer on 05.06.2012.  He had then got himself evaluated in a pvt. Hospital i.e. Adiva North Point Hospital at Green Park Extension on 12.06.2012.  It is therefore, clear that it was not a case of emergency and the complainant could have got his treatment from any empanelled hospital as per the scheme evolved by OP-2.  Similarly he had got himself treated at BL Kapoor Multi Speciality Hospital where as he could visited the empanelled hospital for his treatment.  It is therefore clear that the complainant had taken treatment at non empanelled hospital at his own choice without there being any case of emergency as alleged by him.  The OPs have relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Punjab and Others Vs. Ram Lubhaya Bagga and Others which supports the case of the Ops.  We are therefore of the considered opinion that there was no merits in this complaint which is hereby dismissed.”

          Consequently he has filed an appeal before this Commission on 09.03.2017.  In the first instance, we notice that matter is not within the limitation since the appeal has been filed after statutory period of 30 days.  The appellant contends that he has received the copy of order on 06.02.2017. Even then there is a delay of one day. But in the interest of justice, the delay being of one day, we condone the delay it and proceed to hear the case.

          Grounds on which the appellant has preferred this appeal is that the District Forum could not appreciate the emergency in the matter and therefore negative his claim for reimbursement for obtaining treatment from hospital otherwise not  empanelled. According to appellant the District Forum failed to appreciate his critical ailment. The order according to him has been passed in a mechanical manner without applying the judicious mind. The order passed according to him is wrong, illegal, erroneous and contrary to facts.

          The appellant has made following prayer in his appeal:

1. Recall the records of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Central), ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Complaint Bearing CC No.153 of 2017.
2. Accept the Appeal.
3. Set aside an order dated 06.01.2017 passed by Hon’ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Central), ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Complaint Bearing CC No.153 of 2017 upon the facts and circumstances of the complaint case and directions may be given to Respondents to reimburse an amount of Rs.2,55,340/- alongwith interest @10% per annum from the date of filing of the original claim before the district forum till the decision and realisation of amount in appeal.
4. That by allowing the appeal of the  appellant the respondent(s) be directed to pay amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for causing undue harassment, physical and mental agony, torture and losses suffered by him in such an advance age of life.
5. Cost of litigation may also be awarded in favour of appellant and against the respondents.
6. Also pass such order or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the appellant and against the Respondents.

          We have heard the arguments of counsel and perused the records. We notice that there was no emergency and appellant has all the reasons to go their empanelled hospitals.  His decision to go to non-empanelled hospitals when there is no emergency appellant is not understood. In the absence of any emergency he was required to take treatment from empanelled hospital.

          We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order passed by District Forum.  Accordingly the appeal is dismissed, the order of District Forum being upheld by us.

          Copy of the order may be sent to District Forum as also to the parties  free of cost as contemplated under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Rules 1986 read with Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                             (O.P. GUPTA)

        MEMBER                                                                    MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

 

                                                                                                                                                 

                               

 

245.