PER DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER 1. The present Revision Petition has been filed before this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 06.02.2013 in Appeal No. 453 of 2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, tate Commission. The State Commission dismissed the Appeal. The Appeal was filed against the orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short, istrict Forum in Complaint No. 2012/2011, whereby the complaint was allowed. 2. The complainant, Champa Lal Sharma, is an Office Assistant in the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Ajmer, (in short RSRTC), the OP. Since, September 2009, he was diagnosed as a case of Multiple Myeloma, took initial treatment at Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital, Ajmer. Thereafter, took further treatment at a private hospital called Mahaveer Cancer Centre, Jaipur, till 16.10.2010, spent about Rs.2,06,396.24/-. He requested OP for reimbursement of total medical treatment claim, but it was denied by OP. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service by the OP, and prayed for total medical reimbursement amount, with interest for mental agony and the litigation charges. 3. The District Forum allowed the complaint and awarded Rs.1,75,524/-, along with interest @ 9% p.a. and Rs.1,500/- for expenses. Meanwhile, under protest, the OP made payment of Rs.1,75,524/- to the complainant. Subsequent appeal filed by the OP before State Commission, was dismissed. 4. Aggrieved by the order of State Commission, the OP/Petitioner filed this revision. 5. We have heard the counsel for the Petitioner and perused the evidence on the file. First point of argument was, on non-speaking order of the State Commission, for which he cited two authorities of Honle Supreme Court, H Siddiqui vs. A Ramalingam, (2011) 4 SCC 240, B V Nagesh vs. H. Sreenivasa Murthy (2010) 13 SCC 530. The counsel argued that, the complainant took treatment in the private hospital which was not included in the list of hospitals authorized for medical reimbursement rules, therefore, such reimbursement was not allowed by RSRTC. The complainant took treatment without administrative approval, for cancer disease from Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, Jaipur, hence he was not entitled for reimbursement. He has put reliance upon, the judgment of Honle Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Mahesh Kumar Sharma (2011) 4 SCC 257. The counsel advanced his further argument, that the complainant was not a consumer as per definition. Complainant was an employee of the RSRTC, it was an employer and employee relationship, it a ontract of Service hence the consumer fora have no jurisdiction to entertain such disputes. The government servant does not fall under the definition of a onsumeras defined under Section 2(1)(d) (ii) of the Act. The appropriate forum, for redressal of any of his grievance, may be the State Administrative Tribunal, if any, or the civil court, but certainly not a forum under the C.P. Act. 6. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that, the complainant took his treatment as an emergency at Bhagwan Mahavir Cancer Hospital, Jaipur. It was for a life saving measure, to avoid adverse effect and dire consequences. 7. We have perused the documents on file, the rules pertaining to medical reimbursement. It appears that the OP denied the reimbursement on the basis that the complainant took his treatment at hospital which is not authorized according to Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules 1970 and the administrative approval was not taken by him to take treatment at Bhagwan Mahavir Cancer Hospital. 8. Thus, in our opinion, OP denied the claim on absolute technical ground. The complainant has served the State Government for his whole life, therefore the RSRTC, the OP should not show such an apathetic approach towards human life. Similar view was taken by the Honle Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Ram Lubhaya Bagga, (1998) 4 SCC 117, wherein the Honle Apex Court has held that the State can neither urge nor say that it has no obligation to provide medical facility. If that were so, it would be ex-facie violating Article 21 of the Constitution. While adverting to fixing any rate vis-vis an ailment, the Honle Supreme Court has observed as infra:- No State of any country can have unlimited resources to spend on any of its projects. That is why, it only approves its projects to the extent it is feasible. The same holds good for providing medical facilities to its citizens including its employees. Provision of facilities cannot be unlimited. It has to be to the extent finances permit. If no scale or rate is fixed then in case private clinics or hospitals increase their rate to exorbitant scales, the State would be bound to reimburse the same. Hence we come to the conclusion that principle of fixation of rate and scale under this new policy is justified and cannot be held to be violative of Article 21 or Article 47 of the Constitution of India. 9. Therefore, we are of considered view that, there is no deficiency in service by the OP. The OP has acted in accordance to the Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules 1970, the complainant has not taken any administrative approval from the authority prior to taking the treatment at Bhagwan Mahavir Cancer Hospital. Even though, the Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent act, mainly for the benefit of helpless consumers and our sympathy is with the ailing complainant, who has served OP, throughout his life. But, legally, it is not tenable, therefore, on those grounds, we allow this revision petition, and dismiss the complaint. No order as to costs.