NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1750/2010

DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER (P) & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

C. RAMA RAO RTD. CTI - Opp.Party(s)

MR. RAJESHWAR SINGH

06 Jul 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 1750 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 29/10/2009 in Appeal No. 1364/2007 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER (P) & ANR.D.R.M. Office, South Eastern RailwayVishakhapatnamAndhra Pradesh2. THE CHIEF MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, RAILWAY HOSPITALOpp. Sangam Sarat TheaterVishakhapatnamAndhra Pradesh ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. C. RAMA RAO RTD. CTIR/o. Flat No. 101, Om Vigneshwara Apartment, Abid Nagar, AkkayyapalemVishakhapatnamAndhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 06 Jul 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Heard counsel for the petitioner. Delay in filing the revision petition is condoned. The Petitioner had earlier paid a sum of Rs.113.90 for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by the Complainant under the old OPD Scheme. However, the Petitioner refused to pay a sum of Rs.4482.22 incurred by the Complainant for the period 5.7.2000 to 30.3.2002 on the ground that the complainant was not entitled to the same since he has opted for RLHS Scheme. The identity card for the said scheme was issued to the Complainant on 3.4.2002 and the Complainant had already incurred the said expenditure which was claimed by him. The State Commission after taking into consideration all the relevant factors has allowed the complaint and has directed the Petitioner to pay the said sum of Rs.4482.22 with 9% p.a. interest and cost of Rs.3000/-, besides Rs.5000/- for mental agony. In our opinion, the order of the State Commission, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is just fair and equitable and does not call for any interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as we do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the order of the State Commission. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.


......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................S.K. NAIKMEMBER