Delhi

StateCommission

FA/663/2013

CHARANJEET SINGH RAJPUT - Complainant(s)

Versus

CENTRAL GOVT. HEALTH SCHOOL - Opp.Party(s)

16 May 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: Delhi

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

 

Date of Decision: 08.07.2016

 

First Appeal No. 663/2013

 

 

        In the Matter of:

               

                Charanjit Singh Rajput,

          S/o Late Sh. H.R. Rajput,

          10-D, Pocket-D,

          Gangotri Enclave, Alaknanda,

          New Delhi.

 

          Also at:

          House No. 987, Sector 28,

          Faridabad, Haryana-121008    

 

……Appellant     Versus   Director, Central Govt. Health Scheme        Nirman Bhavan, Maulana Azad Road New Delhi                                                                                  …….Respondent

CORAM

  Justice Veena Birbal, President

  Salma Noor, Member

 

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Salma Noor, Member

1.             This is an appeal against the order dated 22.04.2013 passed by the District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan in complaint case No. 61/2010.

 2.            The case of the appellant is that he was super annuated on 31.03.2009 from the post of Junior Departmental Representative while working in the office of Chief Departmental Representative, CESTAT, RK Puram, New Delhi under Central Board of Excise & Custom, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, and at the time of retirement he was drawing salary of Rs. 32,840/- with grade pay of Rs. 6,600/-.

3.             After retirement he wanted to avail the CGHS facility for himself and his family and applied for CGHS card of life time validity. Accordingly, he filed application for such a card in the month of June 2009 along with Rs. 18000/-, equivalent to 10 years subscription as CGHS beneficiary and which was as per rules at the time of his retirement on 31.03.2009.

4.             In the months of May, on 20.05.2009, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare issued an office memorandum through which the CGHS contribution for his pay grade was increased from 150/- per month to Rs. 325/- as a result he was asked to deposit Rs. 21,000/- more in addition to the amount of Rs. 18000/- calculated in accordance with the CGHS contribution of Rs. 150/- applicable to his grade pay at the time of his retirement.

5.             The case of the appellant/complainant is that he was entitled to get CGHS card after depositing Rs. 18,000/- on the date of his retirement and hence Rs. 21,000/- charged extra from him is wrong and should be refunded.

6.             Notice was issued to the respondent/OP who appeared through his authorized representative and contested the claim. In its written version respondent/OP relied upon the para 5 of the said office memorandum dated 20.05.2009 and pleaded that according to the office memorandum the appellant/complainant was required to pay additional amount of Rs.   21,000/-, it is submitted that the rates of contribution for availing the CGHS facilities were revised with effect from 01.06.2009 through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and according to revised rates, those pensioners who were getting Grade pay scale at the time of their retirement was Rs. 6,000/-were required to pay a sum of Rs. 39,000/- in the shape of the DD/PO @ Rs. 325/- per month. Since, the Complainant’s Grade Pay Scale was Rs. 6,600/- so he was supposed to deposit/DD of Rs. 39,000/- for having life time card for his family. Hence, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost and interest.

7.             After filing the written statement no one appeared on behalf of the respondent/OP hence, OP was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 27.08.2012.

8.             Thereafter appellant/complainant filed ex-parte evidence and written arguments.

9.             The Ld. District Forum considered the case of the parties and passed the following orders:

          “…Therefore, in our considered opinion the case of the complainant was not covered by Para No.5 (i) of the office Memorandum but it falls under 5 (iv) and, therefore the Complainant was rightly asked to pay the difference amount, in view of the revision of the rates made, in this regard. Hence we find no merit, the complaint stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs”.

10.            The appellant/complainant aggrieved by the order of the Ld. District Forum, came in appeal. His case is that he was entitled to get the CGHS card valid for life if he had applied immediately after his retirement and before the date the said Office Memorandum was issued. He further submitted that he needed copy of the pension payment order (PPO) for filing his application for the CGHS card which was issued late  and hence he is not responsible  for the delay in filing his application. The appellant further contended that the para 5(i) of the said Office Memorandum applies in his case and not para 5(iv) as observed by the Ld. District Forum.

11.            Notice was issued to the respondent/OP in the appeal but none appeared in spite of service as such respondent/OP was proceeded ex-parte.

12.            We have heard, appellant in person and perused the material on record.

13.            In absence of any written reply from the respondent/OP the only evidence was an interpretation of the said Office Memorandum and the CGHS procedures for issuance of CGHS card in case PPO is not issued in time. For easy reference para 5 of the said office memorandum is reproduced below:

                 “(i) Contributions to be made by pensioners/family pensioners would be the amount that they were subscribing at the time of their retirement or at the time of death of the Government servant.

                        (ii) Pensioner beneficiaries, who have already obtained CGHS card with life time validity by paying a lump sum amount equivalent to 10 years’ contribution, will not be required to pay any additional amount as a result of the revision in the rates of contribution for availing CGHS facility.

                        (iii) Entitlement of pensioners/family pensioners who have already deposited their contribution for life time CGHS facility, will not be changed:

                (iv) Pensioners/family pensioners who are contributed to the CGHS on an annual basis and wish to continue to avail CGHS benefits will have to contribute at the revised rates upto the time of contribution needed to cover as period of a total of ten years from the time pensioner CGHS card was issued for the first time to them. The revised rate of contribution for the remaining period would be with reference to the grade pay that he/she would have drawn in the post held by him/her (at the time of his/her retirement/death) had he/she continued to be in service now but for his/her retirement/death; and

                        (v) Any pensioner/family pensioner who is entitled to avail CGHS family has not so far got his/her pensioner CGHS card made, the rate of contribution in such cases will be with reference to the grade pay that he/she would have drawn in the post held by him/her (at the time of his/her retirement/death) had he/she continued to be in service now but for his/her retirement/death”.

14.            It is evident from para 5(i) that contribution from pensioners would be calculated on the basis of his subscription at the time of  retirement but immediately after that para 5(ii) clarifies that those who have already got the card, no additional charges would be made. Para 5(iii) further says that even if a pensioner has deposited his contribution as per the prevalent rate, he will not be charged any extra amount. And after this para 5(iv) clarified that in the rest of the cases the enhanced contribution will apply. Hence it is logical to read the whole para in totality and not single out a sub-para which favours the appellant. It is evident that Ld. District Forum has rightly arrived at the conclusion that it is para 5(iv) that applies in this case.

15.            Now the only issue to be examined and that has not been considered by the Ld. District Forum is whether the appellant was bound by the CGHS card procedures to file application for card only after PPO was issued to him and which in this case was delayed. A look at the CGHS card application form reveals that copy of the PPO is required for getting a CGHS card. Since PPO was issued late, it would have been unjust to charge the appellant for no fault of his. Just to confirm and to reach a just findings we have visited to the Health Ministry website of CGHS regarding issuance of card. However, a look at the Health Ministry website reveals that the issue of CGHS card procedures have been further explained in table in question & Answer form. The clarification of question 3 is reproduced below:

                Q. 3 What are the documents required for getting pensioners CGHS card?

                Ans. Application in prescribed format

                Proof of Residence

                Proof of Stay of dependents

                Proof of age of son

                            Disability certificate, if any in case of sons aged 25 & above, who would otherwise cease to be a beneficiary. Photos of eligible family members Surrender Certificate of CGHS Card while in service (only in those cases where CGHS Card was issued while in service)

                 Attested copies of PPO & Last Pay Certificate

                 Draft for required amount towards

                  CGHS contribution- in the name of ‘P.A.O., CGHS New Delhi’ in Delhi-and in the name of ‘AD, CGHS of the city’.

                In case PPO is not ready for any reason there is option to get a provisional card on the basis of Last Pay Certificate”.

                Aforesaid clarification simply proves that the appellant/complainant was not completely handicapped due to delay in issuance of PPO, he himself was responsible for the delay in filing the application and as such has to bear the consequences.

                In view of the above, we feel that there is no merits in the appeal and hence the appeal stands dismissed.

                   A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be sent to the parties free of charge and also to the concnerned District Forum. Thereafter, the file be consigned to record room.  

                                                                            (Justice Veena Birbal)

President

                                                                              

 

(Salma Noor)

                                                                                               Member