DATE OF DISPOSAL: 27.06.2024

PER:  SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT

            The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties  (in short O.Ps.) for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.  

            2. The complainant was working under the O.Ps as a Driver w.e.f. 04.09.1984 and was guided under the terms and conditions of Odisha Forest Development Corporation ltd. Service rules. In course of employment, the complainant suffers from heart ailments and was under medical treatment from 14.09.2018 to 17.09.2018 at AMRI Hospital, Bhubaneswar. For the ailments and treatments the complainant made an expenditure of Rs.1,79,026.80 paisa. The Rule-64 of Odisha Forest Development Corporation Ltd. Service rule, 1986 prescribes as in hereunder:-

            “An employee/workman is entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by him in accordance with the instructions/guidelines issued by the Corporation on this behalf from time to time for their employees/workman”.

The provision of medical facilities granted to the employees of the O.P’s Corporation is a part of service condition and there is any deficiency in service on the part of the employer, complaint can be filed by the employee and therefore the employee is a beneficiary  so far medical faculties are concerned. The salaries of the employees of the corporation are fixed after considering all the facilities like medical facilities being provided to the employees. Therefore all the services are being provided by the O.Ps in lieu of labour being provided by the employee of the Corporation. The complainant in the present complaint has not filed the dispute regarding retiral benefits but for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred due to ailment. The complainant submitted the details of expenses along with essential certificate duly signed by the Doctor, AMRI Hospital, Bhubaneswar, medicine bills cash memo etc. to the OP. No.1 on 15.11.2018. The O.P.No.2 endorse the same to the O.P.No.1 in his office letter No. 4474 dated 11.12.2018. The O.P.No.1 returned back the medicine bills on some plea in letter No. 4906 dated 11.03.2019 instead of sanctioning and making payments. In the meantime the complainant retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.06.2020 in office order No. 31` dated 19.06.2020 of the O.P.No.2.  Being the complainant a heart patient submitted petition on dated 25.06.2020 to the O.P.No.1 through O.P.No.2 for early consideration of reimbursement of medical expenses. On receipt of the aforesaid petition dated 25.06.2020 the O.P.No.2 in its letter dated 25.06.2020 & No.1174 dated 02.07.2020 communicated irrelevant facts without consideration of reimbursement of medical expenses and endorsing the same to the O.P.No.1.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.P. to pay Rs.1,79,026.80 paisa towards reimbursement of medical expenses, compensation of Rs.30,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.15,000/- in the best interests of justice.  

           3. Admitting the case the commission issued notice to the Opposite Parties. But they neither chooses to appear nor filed any written version. Hence they set exparte on dated 14.07.2022.

            4. On the date of hearing the Commission heard from the Learned Counsel of the complainant and perused the complaint, evidence on affidavit, written argument and documents available on case record.

In view of the principle of law laid down in R.P. 2518/2014 reported in 2020(1) CPR 575 (N.C.) the complainant is the consumer in the present case.

Being beneficiary of the scheme, the Complainant should get benefit by reimbursement of medical expenses under the terms and conditions of service Rules of Odisha Forest Development Corporation Ltd and he is eligible and entitled to get the benefits as per provisions. But it is apparent from the Annexure-3 that the complainant has not submitted the letter of approved sanctioned amount from DMET, Bhubaneswar neither before the Opposite Parties nor in the Commission.

However, the Commission allowed the case subject to submission of Letter of the approved sanctioned amount from DMET, Bhubaneswar by the complainant before the Opposite Parties. In the event of submission of letter showing approval of sanctioned amount by the DMET, Bhubaneswar by the complainant, the O.Ps are directed to reimburse the benefits of medical expenses of the complainant within 45 days and in the event of non-compliance by the opposite parties, the Complainant is at liberty to realize the entire dues from the opposite parties in accordance to the consumer protection act, 2019.

This case is disposed of accordingly. No order as to cost and compensation.

The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

Pronounced on 27.06.2024