NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4433/2009

UNION OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.S. DHILLON - Opp.Party(s)

MR. ANMOL

16 Mar 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 4433 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 31/07/2009 in Appeal No. 51/2009 of the State Commission Delhi)
1. UNION OF INDIA- ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. M.S. DHILLON- ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH ,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 16 Mar 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

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.

 

          Heard learned counsel for petitioner and respondent on admission.
        There has been delay of eight days in filing revision petition beyond   prescribed   period   of   limitation, for   which an application for condonation of delay has been filed by petitioner. For the reasons assigned in the application filed by petitioner delay in filing revision petition is hereby condoned.
          Factual matrix are that surgical operation of knee of wife of respondent, who was beneficiary of CGHS available to Central Government Employees, was carried out in a private Hospital not recognized by CGHS. After treatment was over, claim of Rs.3,32,577/- was made by respondent with petitioner for reimbursement, which was rejected holding this to be not a case of Orthopedic, emergency necessitating treatment in private hospital.
 
          Aggrieved respondent took recourse for redressal of his grievance before Consumer Grievance Redressal Agency filing a consumer complaint with District Forum. Complaint was resisted by petitioner stating that since it was not a case of emergency necessitating immediate surgery, treatment could have been availed only in hospital recognized by CGHS. However, District Forum having overruled contention raised on behalf of petitioner directed reimbursement of expenses incurred over treatment by respondent alongwith compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. State Commission too in appeal putting reliance on certificate issued by treating doctor, who was a Orthopedic surgeon, which showed emergency, dismissed appeal. 
Having regard to repudiation of claim only on premises of there being no evidence about emergency necessitating immediate surgical operation, certificate issued by Orthopedic Surgeon, who carried out operation, clinches the issue. 

            Having considered submissions of parties and regard being had to the nature of repudiation, no fault can be found with order of the State Commission, which is accordingly affirmed and resultantly revision petition being without substance is dismissed, with no order as to costs.



......................JB.N.P. SINGHPRESIDING MEMBER