PER SHRI.S.B. DHUMAL – HON’BLE PRESIDENT.
1) In brief consumer dispute is as under -
That Complainant Dr. Binoy Gupta retired as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax 1 (CCA), Chennai on attaining superannuation on the 30 September 2005. On the date of retirement, some departmental proceeding were pending against the Complainant, so regular pension was not sanctioned but only provision pension was sanctioned. The provisional pension was not disbursed to the Complainant through any specified bank.
2) The department proceeding initiated against the Complainant were dropped in Jan 2008 and then Complainant become entitled to regular pension. The department stopped paying Provisional Pension from the month of February 2008. However it passed order of sanctioning regular pension only on 25/04/2009 (after delay of 14 months) The Complainant received pension for month of February 2008 to January 2010 Only on 25 February 2010.
3) Sometime in January 2008 the Complainant had applied to the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) office in Mumbai for issue of Pensioners CGHS Card and for that purpose paid prescribed fee of Rs. 18,000/- by demand draft. The Complainant was allotted Pensioners CGHS Card No. 314403 but in fact this Card was not issued to him because the local Mumbai CGHS office wanted a certificate from his bank to the effect that the Complainant was not drawing medical allowance of Rs. 100/- per month. The Complainant was not getting his pension through any designated Bank till February 2010 and therefore it was not possible for Complainant to submit such a certificate. The CCIT, Chennai issued a certificate dated 11/12/2008 that the Complainant had not been given any medical allowance. Even then local Mumbai CGHS office did not issue pensioners CGHS Card to the Complainant and returned the draft of Rs.18,000/- to the Complainant which had to be cancelled.
4) It is submitted by the Complainant that on several occasions he visited CGHS office Mumbai and also prepared draft of Rs.18,000/- but he could not get pensioners CGHS Card. According to the Complainant on 19/10/2010 Pensioners CGHS CARD No.316621 was issued to him on payment of the enhanced amount of Rs.60,000/-(applicable from 01/06/2009), even though Complainant had submitted application in January 2008 and also paid the then prescribed fee of Rs.18,000/-.
5) It is the grievance of the Complainant that medical facilities for more than 5 years, have been denied to him and he was forced to pay of Rs.60,000/- instead of Rs.18,000/- for Pensioners CGHS Card. Therefore he had sent notice dtd.20/10/2010 to both the Respondents requesting to refund excess amount of Rs.48,000/- together with interest. However both the Respondents have not complied with the notice. Therefore Complainant had filed this complaint and requested to direct the respondent to refund excess amount of Rs.42,000/- with interest 15% pa from 19/10/2010 till the date of payment amount to the Complainant. The Complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Opposite Parties for the inconvenience and metal agony caused to the Complainant and for medical expenses incurred by the Complainant and his wife during the last five years . The Complainant has also prayed for Rs.10,000/- towards cost of this proceeding. In support of Complaint Complainant has filed his affidavit and produced copies of documents.
6) Opposite Parties 1 and 2 have filed their written statement and thereby resisted claim of the Complainant contending that Complainant is not a consumer as defined under the provisions of The Consumer Protection Act and there is no Cause of Action for this complaint and therefore complaint deserves to be dismissed.
7) It is submitted that after retirement from Income tax department, Complainant had approached for CGHS Card, however he did not comply with the terms and condition or did not comply with all the formalities required under said the Scheme. Therefore Complainant did not succeed in obtaining CGHS Card. The copies of application form with checklist of documents required for obtaining CGHS Card are annexed by the Opposite Parties with written statement. According to the Opposite Parties CGHS benefits can be availed of after the completion of entire formalities. The Complainant complied with the formalities for availing CGHS Card on 19/10/2010. Then the respondent had informed to the Complainant the prevailing rates of CGHS contribution on the date of compliance of requisite requirements.
8) It is submitted that the Complainant did not comply requisite compliance of CGHS Card on or before 1st June 2009 but he could comply only on 19/10/2010. Therefore rates of CGHS contribution as on 19/10/2010 were applied. Therefore the grievances of the Complainant are totally ill founded and not in accordance to law. It is alleged that the Complainant has suppressed material facts from this forum. The CGHS scheme was made available to the Complainant on from 19/10/2010. Therefore the Complainant was not entitled benefit under the scheme prior to 19/10/2010. It is submitted that enhanced rate of CGHS Contribution came in to effect from 01/06/2009. The Opposite Parties have produced copy of office memorandum of enhanced rate of contribution for CGHS Card. It is contained that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties and therefore complaint deserved to be dismissed.
9) Alongwith written statement the Opposite Party has produced photo copy of the application form for CGHS Card submitted by the Complainant and copy of office Memorandum dtd.20/05/09 regarding revision of rates of subscription under CGHS Scheme. The Complainant has filed rejoinder and thereby denied allegations made in the written statement. The Complainant has filed written notes of argument. Opposite Party has also filed written notes of argument. Heard Complainant in person & Ld.Advocate H.D. Rathod for the Opposite Party.
10) Following points arises for our consideration and our findings thereon are as under -
Point No.1 : Whether the Complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party ?
Findings : No
Point No.4 : Whether the Complainant is entitled for relief from Opposite Parties as prayed for ?
Findings : No
Reasons :-
Point No.1 :- Following facts are admitted fact that the Complainant retired as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax 1(CCA), Chennai on 30/09/2005. On the date of retirement, some departmental proceedings were pending against the Complainant. Therefore, regular pension was not sanctioned to the Complainant. Provisional pension was sanctioned to the Complainant but the provisional pension was not disbursed through any specified bank. The departmental proceedings against the Complainant dropped in January, 2008. Then the Complainant became entitle to regular pension form the month of February, 2010. According to the Complainant, his provisional pension was stopped from the month of February, 2008. However, order of sanctioning regular pension were passed on 25/04/09. According to the Complainant, he received pension for the months of February, 08 to January, 2010. It is undisputed fact that that in the month of January, 2008, the Complainant applied to the CGHS Office in Mumbai for issue of Pensioners CGHS Card and paid prescribed fee of Rs.18,000/- by demand draft.
According to Opposite Party, the Complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Complainant has denied allegations made in the written statement that he is not a consumer. In support of his contention the Complainant has relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.570 of 2020. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that Opposite Party has deliberately caused delay in issuing CGHS Card to him and it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. Therefore, we hold that the Complainant is a ‘Consumer’ as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
It is submitted by the Complainant that Opposite Party allotted to him Pensioners CGHS Card No.314403 but in fact Card was not issued to him because the Opposite Party No.1 wanted a certificate from his bank to the effect that he was not drawing medical allowance of Rs.100/- per month. The Complainant has further submitted that he explained to the Opposite Party that he was not getting pension through any designated bank, therefore, it was not possible for him to submit such a certificate. The Complainant has referred to the application form for CGHS Card by Pensioners of the Central Government submitting that it is downloaded form the Opposite Party’s website. According to the Complainant, as stated in the prescribed form, there is no necessity to submit certificate of non-drawal medical allowance of Rs.100/- per month. In the list of documents required to be produced alongwith form for CGHS Card, there is no mention of non-drawal of medical allowance certificate of Rs.100/- per month.
Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party has submitted that this so called copy of application form for CGHS Card produced by the Complainant is not authenticated document. Nobody has singed it as a true copy. It is incomplete document and, it cannot be relied upon. Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party has referred to copy of the Complainant’s application form produced by the Complainant alongwith complaint pointed out that on the last page of the form, list of documents which are required to be produced in original for obtaining CGHS Card is given. Documents mentioned at Sr.No.7 is a certificate of non-drawal of medical allowance of Rs.100/- per month. The aforesaid document which was required to be filed alongwith application was not produced by the Complainant and therefore, CGHS Card was not issued to the Complainant. According to the Complainant, Opposite Party had asked him to submit certificate of non-drawal of medical allowance of Rs.100/- per month from his bank but he was not getting his pension through any designated bank and so he cannot produced certificate of non-drawal of medical allowance of Rs.100/- per month from the bank. Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party has submitted that in the complaint as well as in the written argument, the Complainant has made false allegation against the Opposite Party that Opposite Party had asked the Complainant to produce certificate from the bank regarding non-drawal of medical allowance of Rs.100/- per month. The Opposite Party has never asked the Complainant to produce non-drawal certificate of medical allowance from the bank. It is submitted on behalf of Opposite Party that it was possible for the Complainant to produce certificate of non-drawal of medical allowance of Rs.100/- per month from his department. The Complainant has falsely alleged that Opposite Party’s were insisting to produce certificate from the bank regarding non-drawal of medical allowance of Rs.100/- per month. The Complainant has not adduced any evidence to support his allegations that Opposite Parties were asking him to produce certificate of bank regarding non drawal of medical allowance of Rs.100/- p.m. Therefore, we do not find substance in the allegations made by the Complainant that Opposite Party’s were insisting the Complainant to produce certificate from his bank regarding non-drawal of medical allowance of Rs100/-. It was necessary for the Complainant to produce certificate of non-drawal of medical allowance from his department. It appears from the evidence on record that the Complainant has failed to produce non-drawal certificate of medical allowance of Rs.100/- per month. So Opposite Party could not issue CGHS Card to the Complainant.
It is submitted by the Complainant that right to receive proper medical treatment under the CGHS Scheme is a valuable legal right of retired officer. According to the Complainant, on non justifiable ground, the Opposite Party refused to issue CGHS Card to the Complainant and thereby the Complainant could not get medical facility for more than 5 years even though he had submitted his application in the month of January, 2008. As discussed above, as the Complainant has failed to comply with all the formalities required for issue of CGHS Card, the Opposite Party’s could not issue CGHS Card to the Complainant till 19/10/2010. It appears from the evidence on record that on the date of retirement some department proceedings were pending against the Complainant so provisional pension was sanctioned. Departmental proceedings were dropped in the year January, 2008. It is the grievance of the Complainant that initially when he had made application for CGHS Card in January, 08, that time prescribed fee was Rs.18,000/-. The Opposite Party allotted CGHS Card number but, not issued card on the alleged ground on non-compliance of formalities. In the year 2010, CGHS Card was issued to him but he was forced to pay Rs.60,000/- as a contribution and thereby he has suffered loss of Rs.48,000/-. According to the Complainant, Opposite Party ought to have recovered proportionate amount of subscription from him and not Rs.60,000/-. It is submitted that because of deficiency in service on the ground of Opposite Party, he could not get CGHS Card in the year 2008. He was forced to pay an excess amount of Rs.48,000/-.
Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Party has submitted that in the year 2008, the Complainant could not submit necessary documents and could not complete formalities for issue of CGHS Card. The Complainant has not produced so called certificate dtd.11/12/2008 issued by the Department. Due to non compliance on the part of Complainant, CGHS Card was not issued. There was no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. It is submitted that before the Complainant complied with all the formalities office memorandum was issued by the Government of India Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department, dtd.20/05/09 and thereby contribution rates of subscription under CGHS were revised. Contribution was increased from Rs.18,000/- to 60,000/-. Earlier Demand Draft of Rs.18,000/- submitted by the Complainant was returned to the Complainant. As per revised rates of contribution the Complainant has paid Rs.60,000/-. The Complainant cannot blame Opposite Party’s for enhance rates of contribution. The contribution is increased by Government of India Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department. The Complainant has not joined Government of India as a party of this proceeding. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we hold that the Complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1 & 2. In the result we answer point no.1 in the negative.
Point No.1 :- As discussed above the Complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties. The Complainant has paid contribution for CGHS Card as per the rates revised by the Government of India Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department. Therefore, we hold that the Complainant is not entitled to claim any relief from the Opposite Party. Hence, we answer point no.2 in the negative.
For the reasons discussed above, complaint deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, we pass following order -
O R D E R
i.Complaint No.327/2010 is hereby dismissed.
ii.No order as to cost.
iii.Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
