| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C.No.130 of 24-7-2020 Decided on : 07-06-2023 Smt.Sio Devi aged about 75 years Wd/o Lt. Hem Raj Gupta, R/o H.No.1574, 4691, St.No.3, Nai Basti, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus District Education Officer (Secondary), Mini Secretariat, Bathinda. Govt. Senior Secondary School, (Boys), Goniana Mandi, Tehsil & Distt. Bathinda, through its Principal. Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Bathinda.
.......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 QUORUM Sh. Lalit Mohan Dogra, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Present : For the complainant : Sh. Ram Manohar, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh.Parveen Kumar, opposite party No.2 in person and representative of opposite party No.1. Sh.Harpal Rai, A.R of opposite party No.3. ORDER Lalit Mohan Dogra, President The complainant Smt.Sio Devi (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against District Education Officer & Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that her husband Hem Raj Gupta was a Govt. S.S Master and he had retired from the service on 30.4.1996 and his PPO Number is 100045/PB. Hem Raj Gupta had fallen ill due to the heart problem. He was got admitted in Delhi Heart Instituter & Research Hospital, 40 Ft. Road, Bathinda and remained admitted there w.e.f. 26.8.2012 to 31.8.2012 and he spent a total sum of Rs.57,694/- for his treatment. He lodged the claim with opposite parties for reimbursement of the medical claim on 26.10.2012 and furnished the requisite formalities/documents including the entire treatment record and bills etc. and requested opposite party No.2 to reimburse the amount of Rs.57,694/-. Husband of the complainant died on 25.03.2013. It is alleged that after the death of Hem Raj Gupta, the complainant being his widow and L.R repeatedly approached opposite parties and requested them to honour the claim, but to no effect, rather they kept on putting the matter off on one or the other false pretext. The complainant also wrote letter to opposite parties and requested them to release amount of Rs.57,694/-, but to no effect The complainant applied for supply of information under Right to Information Act vide letter dated 17.9.2019. Opposite party No.2 has given reply vide letter dated 16.10.2019 that it has forwarded the bill to the treasurer Bathinda to reimburse the amount in the account of complainant. It is further alleged that it was only after the filing of the application under Right to Information Act, opposite parties have partly allowed the claim of the complainant and released a sum of Rs.36,459/- in the account of the complainant on 22.11.2019 i.e. after more than 7 years from the date of application for reimbursement of the claim. Opposite parties kept the claim of the complainant pending for more than 7 years and thereafter, paid only Rs.36,459/- and have illegally deducted a sum of Rs.21,235/- and they have also not paid any interest to her on account of delayed payment. The complainant repeatedly requested the opposite parties to reimburse the balance amount of Rs.21,235/- and also to pay interest on the total amount on account of delay in payment of the aforesaid amount, but to no effect, rather they refused to accede to her lawful claim. It is further alleged that due to the act on part of opposite parties, the complainant who is an old aged lady, is suffering from great mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment, humiliation and financial cries. She also got issued a legal notice dated 3.12.2019 to opposite parties through her counsel calling upon them to reimburse the balance amount of Rs.21,235/- out of the total medical claim of her husband and also to pay interest on this amount @12% per annum w.e.f. 26.10.2012 till payment and to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of Rs.36,459/- already reimbursed by them to her for the period from 26.10.2012 to 22.11.2019 on account of delayed payment of the amount, but they even did not give any reply to the notice On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to pay the balance amount of claim i.e. Rs.21,235/- alongwith interest 12% w.e.f date of claim i.e. 26.10.2012 till the date of realization and to pay the amount of interest on the amount of Rs.36,459/- partial paid in the claim i.e. 12% w.e.f date of claim upto its true realization i.e. 26.10.2012 to 22.11.2019 and Rs.70,000/- for causing harassment, mental agony and pain and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses. Upon notice, opposite party No.2 appeared in person and opposite party No.1 appeared through A.R and contested the complaint by filing written reply and raised the legal objections that opposite party No.1 is Punjab Govt. officer and opposite party No.2 is a Govt. school run by the Punjab Govt. and its principal is also a Punjab Govt. officer and it is mandatory provision of CPC that whenever the case is instituted against the state governments then the notice is to be served either to the secretary to that government or to the collector of the district, but the complainant has failed to serve the notice U/s 80 CPC upon the secretary or the district collector. The complainant is the widow of Hemraj Gupta, Govt. teacher and his services were governed by Punjab Service Rules. As such, she does not fall within the definition of 'consumer' U/s 2(d) (1) & (2) of 'Act'. The complaint has not been filed by authorised legal representative of the late Sh.Hemraj Gupta. The complainant is not the sole surviving legal heir of late Sh.Hem Raj Gupta. As such, the compliant has not been filed by authorised legal representatives of the deceased Sh.Hem Raj Gupta, hence it is liable to be dismissed. On merits, opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 have admitted regarding lodging of medical claim with opposite parties and death of the husband of the complainant. Opposite party no.2 had forwarded the medical bill of late Sh.Hemraj Gupta to opposite party No.3 for passing as per Medical Attendance Rules as well as Punjab Govt. Instructions and office of opposite party No.3 passed the medical reimbursement bill for Rs.36,459/- as per Medical Attendance Rules/Punjab Govt. Instructions. The medical claim of the complainant was not passed by the medical authorities. As such, the medical claim was immediately forwarded to the CMO (Chief Medical Officer) Bathinda vide letter No.738 dated 30.10.2012 and medical authorities passed the bill for Rs.36,459/- for payment as per Medical Attendance Rules/Punjab Govt. instructions. It is further admitted with respect to filing of RT1 by the complainant. The complainant never pressed her claim to receive the payment of medical claim of her deceased husband for fairly long period of about 6 years. The payment of medical claim amounting Rs.36,459/- sanctioned by medical authorities was made to the complainant through District Treasury officer Bathinda on 22.11.2019. The amount Rs. 21,235/- so deducted was not allowed by the medical authorities and complainant was not entitled for the payment as per Medical Aftendance Rules/Punjab Govt. instruction No cause-of-action arose in favour of the complainant. As such, this court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint against opposite party Nos.1 and 2. Upon notice, opposite party No.3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing separate written reply and raised the legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form. The complainant has no locus-standi to file the complaint against opposite party No.3. She has not come to this Forum with clean hands and tried to keep the Forum under dark. As such, she is not entitled to any relief. The reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by the employee/pensioner/or its dependents is a facility and it is not a part of service. It is pleaded that the complainant does not fall under the definition of 'consumer' of opposite parties as defined under the provisions of the 'Act', rather the complainant is beneficiary in this manner. As per scheme of the State of Punjab dated 13.2.1995, every employee, pensioner and its dependents have been allowed to get treatment in any private institution/hospital (of their own choice), in the country provided that he/she gives an undertaking out of his/her free will and in unambigous terms that he/she will accept reimbursement of expenses incurred by his/her on his/her treatment to the level of expenditure as per rates fixed by the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab for a similar treatment, package or actual expenditure whichever is less. Accordingly, the claimant at the time of submission of his medical claim, has also given undertaking in the same manner. Therefore, the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts from this Forum. As such, she is not entitled to any relief . The complaint against opposite party No.3 is false, frivolous to the knowledge of the complainant. As such, it is liable to be dismissed by burdening the complainant with exemplary costs. On merits, opposite party No.3 has pleaded that the claim of Hem Raj Gupta to the tune of Rs. 57,694/- was received from Principal, Govt. Senior Secondary School (Boys),Goniana Mandl (Opposite Party No.2) in this office in the month of November 2012 and same was duly processed and after clearance from District Medical Board on 19.11.201 2, the claim was sent to the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, Chandigarh on 5.12.2012 and an amount of Rs. 34,659/- was approved by the said office and approval lelter was endorsed to opposite party No.2 vide office letter No.1167 dated 12.3.2013 and approval was granted well within the time and there is no deficiency on the part of opposite party No.3. The complainant is not entitled to the balance amount of Rs.21,235/- out of the total medical claim of Hem Raj Gupta, which was sanctioned in accordance with the scheme of the State of Punjab. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit dated 24.7.2020, (Ex. C-1) and documents (Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-10). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajvinder Kaur dated 28.10.2020, (Ex.OP1/1). Opposite party No.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr. Amrik Singh Dated 28-11-2020 (Ex. OP-3/1) and documents (Ex.OP-3/2 & Ex.OP-3/3). Counsel for complainant has argued that the husband of the complainant Hem Raj Gupta being government employee had submitted the claim for reimbursement of medical bills on 26.10.2012 and thereafter died on 25.3.2013. After death of her husband, the complainant repeatedly visited opposite parties for reimbursement of the medical bills and ultimately, she lodged application under RTI on 17.9.2019 on which opposite party No.2 had replied vide letter dated 16.10.2019 that it has forwarded the bills to the Treasury Bathinda. Even opposite parties deducted an amount of Rs.21,235/- illegally and unlawfully and they had paid Rs.36,459/- to the complainant. The complainant has claimed interest on the delayed payment and balance amount of Rs.21,235/- from opposite parties. Sh.Parveen Kumar, Principal (Opposite party No.2 and representative of opposite party No.1) is present and argued that suit is not maintainable as Government of Punjab has not been impleaded as party and complainant has not served the notice U/s 80 C.P.C. It is further argued that all the legal heirs have not been impleaded in the complaint. It is further argued that the complainant never approached answering opposite parties regarding payment of medical bills. As such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Representative of opposite party No.3 Harpal Rai, Junior Assistant is present and has also filed written arguments and it has been stated that Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It is further argued that the claim for reimbursement of Rs.57,694/- was received from opposite party No.2 in November 2012 and after clearance, claim was sent to District Medical Board on 19.11.2012 and thereafter sent to Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, Chandigarh on 5.12.2012 and amount of Rs.34,659/- was approved by the said office and approval letter was endorsed to opposite party No.2 vide office letter No.1167 dated 12.3.2013. He has further argued that deduction of Rs.21,235/- was made as per medical attendence rules/Pb. government instructions and he has prayed for dismissal of complaint. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the written arguments and file carefully. It is admitted fact that Hem Raj Gupta, husband of the complainant had submitted claim for reimbursement of medical bills on 26.10.2012 with opposite party No.2 vide Ex.C4. It is further admitted fact that Hem Raj Gupta expired on 25.3.2013, which is evident from the death certificate, (Ex.C5). It is further admitted fact that Hem Raj Gupta had spent Rs.57,694/- on his treatment. It is further admitted fact that opposite party No.2 had submitted the claim with opposite party No.3 in November 2012 and amount of Rs.34,659/- was approved by Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, Chandigarh on 5.12.2012 and thereafter approval letter was endorsed to opposite party No.2 vide office letter No.1167 dated 12.3.2013, meaning thereby that the claim was submitted by the husband of the complainant within time vide letter, (Ex.C4) and amount of Rs.34,459/- was paid to the complainant on 22.11.2019, which is evident from the copy of passbook, (Ex.C8) i.e. after delay of 7 years and that also when the complainant approached opposite party No.2 through RTI application, (Ex.C6), which was replied on 16.10.2019 by opposite party No.2. This Commission is of the view that an amount of Rs.21,235/- has been deducted by Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, Chandigarh out of total amount of Rs.57,694/- as per medical attendance rules/Pb. Government instructions and guidelines. However, this Commission is of the view that there is unexplained delay in payment on the part of opposite parties, which has not been explained by them as it is evident from the evidence on record that medical bills were submitted for reimbursement on 26.10.2012 and payment was made to the complainant on 22.11.2019 i.e. after delay of 7 years and opposite parties are not able to explain any jurisdiction or reasonable cause for delay. Learned counsel for complainant has referred the case law R.S.A No.3524 of 2012, Decided on 8.8.2012 by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court case title State of Haryana and Others Vs. Ranbir Singh wherein Hon'ble High Court has held that some time could be spent on verification of amount spent by the petitioner and petitioner was not entitled to receive payment of interest for said period of 3 months and has also referred the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case title Om Parkash Gargi Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (1996) 11 SCC 399. As per above settled laws, the complainant is definitely entitled to receive interest on the amount of Rs.36,459/- w.e.f. 19.2.2013 i.e. 3 months after submission of claim for reimbursement till payment was made to her on 22.11.2019. Second question before this Commission is regarding rate of interest as the complainant has claimed interest @12% per annum on the delayed payment and in this context, counsel for complainant has also referred the judgment of Hon'ble High Court adjudicata Madras in “Writ Petition No.848 of 2006 case title C.Nagamuthu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu wherein Hon'ble High Court has held that the complainant is entitled to receive interest @12% per annum on the delayed payment.” As such, as per case law cited by learned counsel for complainant, the complainant is entitled to receive interest @ 12% per annum on the delayed payment. The plea of opposite party Nos.1 and 2 regarding failure of the complainant to comply with the provision of Section 80 C.P.C is also not tenable in view of the case law cited by learned counsel for complainant in judgement delivered by “Jammu & Kashmir High Court in case Union of India Vs. V.K Chopra, Decided on 19.4.2004 wherein it was held that there is no provision under 'Act' which requires service of notice U/s 80 C.P.C as the consumer has only to lodge a complaint, if his case falls within the definition of deficiency in service.” As far as question of jurisdiction of this Commission is concerned. It has been held by Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T, Chandigarh in Appeal Case No.370 of 2011, Decided on 9.5.2012 that the definition of the word consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) provides that a person would, inter ilia, be a consumer if he hires or avails of the services for consideration paid (paid in past or agreed to be paid in future including deferred payment).'in consideration of service rendered to the Government, till the age of superannuation, if right is conferred upon an employee, to get pension, as well as other benefits-including medical treatment prescribed by various Rules or the schemes, framed by Government, it cannot be held that it is a free service. Such employee would be a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. This Commission is of the view that Consumer Commission has every jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and case of the complainant definitely false under the definition of Consumer From above discussion, evidence on record and cases law referred above, this Commission is of the view that the complainant has fully approved and established deficiency in services on the part of opposite party Nos.1 and 2 in having delayed payment of amount of Rs.34,459/- to the complainant. Accordingly, the complaint is partly allowed and opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are held liable to pay interest @12% per annum on the amount of Rs.36,459/- w.e.f. 19.2.2013 to 22.11.2019 and future interest @9% w.e.f. 22.11.2019 till realization. Since the complainant who is widow lady, has suffered at the hands of opposite party Nos.1 and 2 for a long period of 7 years without any fault on her part, as such, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental tension and harassment and Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation. It is further directed that copy of this order be sent to Secretary Education Punjab Chandigarh to hold enquiry in the matter as to which employee of the education department was responsible for delay of 7 years in release of payment to the complainant and to take appropriate disciplinary action against the employee responsible for delay. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced:- 07-06-2023 (Lalit Mohan Dogra) (Shivdev Singh) President Member
| |
