SMT PADMA PASSI filed a consumer case on 30 Jan 2023 against CHIEF EXECUTIVES ENGINEERS in the South Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/226/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 21 Feb 2023.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.226/2015
Smt. Padma Passi,
Wife of Shri Mohan Passi,
Presently residing at House No. K-355,
Dakshinpuri,
Ambedkar Nagar,
New Delhi
….Complainant
Versus
The Chief Executive Engineer,
Delhi Jal Board,
Jal Vihar, Jal Sadan,
Lajpat Nagar-II
New Delhi-110024
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 25.08.2015
Date of Order : 30.01.2023
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
The Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking reimbursement of the medical bills of her deceased husband who was an employee of the OP i.e Delhi Jal Board along with interest @ 24% and Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation.
OP was duly served and was proceeded exparte vide order dated 12.08.2016. Complainant has filed her exparte evidence and written arguments. This Commission has gone through the entire material on record and it is seen that the Complainant has filed her two undated letters written to the OP however, these letters have been filed with the OP as there are two diary nos. given at the back of the letters.
It is also observed that a letter has been issued to the Complainant by the OP wherein the OP has requested the Complainant to contact the labour department along with all the medical bills so that matter can be resolved. It is also seen that the medical card of the Complainant has been issued by the OP and carry entries till 2003. A letter no. DJB/AC(LW)2015/D-3167 dated 11.09.2015 and 14.09.2015 is also placed on record issued by the OP to the counsel of the Complainant wherein it has been stated by the OP that the husband of the Complainant was not the member of medical scheme of Delhi JAL Board as he had not deposited medical subscription after 31.03.2006 as applicable to pensioners. The bill submitted by the Complainant relates to the period 08.03.2010 to 15.06.2010 therefore, the question of medical reimbursement of the bill for the said does not arise in this case.
We are of the view that since the husband of the Complainant had not deposited medical subscription after 2006 therefore, the OP cannot be forced to reimburse the medical bills of the husband of the Complainant. The complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed.
File be consigned to the record room and order be uploaded on the website.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
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.