Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/693/2010

Manjit Singh S/o sardar Harbans Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Northern Railway - Opp.Party(s)

Sushil Garg

15 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 693 of 2010.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 28.07.2010.

                                                                                     Date of decision: 15.11.2016.

Manjit Singh aged about 54 years son of Sardar Harbans Singh, R/o House No.520A, Railway Colony, Jagadhri Workshop, Yamuna Nagar.  

                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                     …Complainant.

1. Northern Railway, Principal Office Baroda House, New Delhi, through its Manager.
2. Chief Medical Officer, Northern Railway Principal Office, Baroda House, New Delhi.
3. Medical Superintendent, Northern Railway Hospital, Jagadhri Workshop, Yamuna Nagar.
4. Chief Works Manager, Northern Railway, Jagadhri Workshop, Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                      …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                       SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Sushil Garg, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

               Sh. Ramneek Sharma, Advocate, counsel for respondents.

           

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Manjit Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as Ops) be directed to pay Rs.2,65,100/- amount spent by the complainant on his medical treatment alongwith interest and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant is working as Carpenter having Token No. 6335 since 1981 with the respondents at Jagadhri Railway Workshop. Since, 2005, the complainant has been suffering from heart problem and was getting the medical treatment from the OP No.2 pertaining his illness from time to time and thus he availed medical treatment from the OP hospital till 2007 and thereafter they refused to provide the medical treatment to the complainant. Thereafter, he is getting the medical treatment pertaining to illness from Gaba Hospital, Yamuna Nagar. On 07.02.2010, the complainant alongwith his family members had gone to Chandigarh, where, suddenly, he suffered a severe heart attack and having no option, his wife take him to the Fortis Hospital, Mohali, for the urgent medical treatment as required to save the life of complainant where he underwent Coronary Angiography followed by emergency PCDA to LAD on 08.02.2010. The complainant remained admit there since 07.02.2010 to 11.02.2010. He was discharged on 11.02.2010 from the hospital. The complainant given due intimation to the OPs on 15.02.2010 and after thorough investigation in the hospital, the OPs provide a leave for one week for medical treatment and also the Ops required to submit a fitness certificate to higher authorities and thereafter, he joined his service. The complainant submitted his medical claim on 01.04.2010 for a sum of Rs. 2,18,000/-, inadvertently whereas he incurred a sum of Rs. 2,65,100/-  and also submitted all the requisite documents as required by the OPs but the complainant was astonished to receive a letter No. 500/Med/JUDW/Re-imbursement/08 dated 20.04.2010, received on 13.07.2010 whereby the OP No.2 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the false and flimsy ground that the case was not of emergent nature and he should have come before the Doctor at Railway Hospital.. Hence, this complaint

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; Complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct;  this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as if the complainant  felt aggrieved, then he should have appealed to the Chief Medical Director / NR Baroda House, New Delhi and on merit it has been denied that the OP No.2 has ever refused to provide the medical treatment to the complainant. The complainant has not enclosed by treatment record from Gaba Hospital. However, no patient who is entitled for treatment is ever refused treatment from Railway Hospital, Jagadhri Railway Workshop. As per discharge slip of Fortis Hospital, Mohali, the patient having symptoms for two years and was not admitted due to any emergent condition. As it shows, on admission, patient’s general condition was stable with all vital parameters within normal range. Even otherwise, the complainant has admitted in Para No.2 of his complaint that he is suffering from heart problem since 2005 and is availing the medical treatment from the respondent till 2007, so, it  goes to show that there was no emergent condition and he should have come before the doctor at Railway Hospital.. The claim of the complainant was disposed off as per existing rules and regulations. The case of the complainant’s was examined by the committee of three doctors and no emergency was found for taking treatment in a private hospital.  It has been further denied that the complainant has incurred the expenditure of Rs. 2,65,100/- on his treatment. Lastly, it has been mentioned that the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CX and documents such as photo copies;-  of treatment record  as Annexure C-1, Echocardiography report as Annexure C-2, Outdoor slip as Annexure C-3, Discharge card of Gaba Hospital as Annexure C-4, Outdoor patient record as Annexure C-5,  Medical slip of Northern Railway Hospital, Jagadhri as Annexure C-6, OPD slip of Northern Railway Hospital as Annexure C-7, Certificate issued by Fortis Hospital as Annexure C-8, Cardiology Discharge Summary as Annexure C-9,  OPD Slip for referred outstation case as Annexure C-10,  Clinical history & exam finding as Annexure C-11, Lab Investigation report as Annexure C-12, Bacteriological Culture report as Annexure C-13, Repudiation letter dated 24.04.2010 as Annexure C-14,  Adhoc detailed bill date wise as Annexure C-15  and closed his evidence.

5.                     On the other hand, Counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence photo copy of Repudiation letter dated 20.04.2010 as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of discharge summary of Cardiology Department Fortis Hospital as Annexure R-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                        We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file minutely & carefully.

 7.                    Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint that claim pertaining to getting the medical treatment to the OPs on 01.04.2010 for a sum of Rs. 2,65,100/-, which was paid to the hospital by the complainant himself, has been wrongly and illegally rejected vide letter dated 20.04.2010 (Annexure C-14/R-1) and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for the OPs reiterated the averments made in the reply that the case of the complainant’s was examined by a Committee of three (3) Doctors and no emergency was found for taking treatment in a private hospital and he should have come before the Doctor at Railway Hospital hence, the same has been legally repudiated and prayed for its dismissal.

8.                     Learned counsel for the complainant draw our attention towards the documents i.e. medical record of Gaba Hospital relating to the period from 2004 to 2007 (Annexure C-1 to C-7) and argued that the complainant was suffering from heart attack disease from the last so many years.  Learned counsel for the complainant further draw our attention towards the letter dated 09.02.2010 (Annexure C-8) of the Fortis Hospital in which it has been mentioned that complainant underwent coronary angiography followed by emergency PTCA to LAD. Learned counsel for the complainant also draw our attention towards the other treatment records as well as bills issued by the Fortis Hospital Mohali and lastly prayed for acceptance of complaint and referred the case law titled as Vasu Dev Bhanot Versus Union of India and others, 2008(2) SCT page 404 wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 299 of 2007, that claim cannot be repudiated in Hyper-Technical stand taken by respondents.

                     Ld. Counsel for the complainant further referred the case law titled as District Project Coordinator, Sarva Siksha Abhiyan & Others Versus Smt. Vidhya Devi, 2014 (1) CLT page 296 wherein it has been held that “ it is well settled that right to health is an integral to right to life- We can assess that, the cancer disease is fatal one and anxiety of family members is to prolong the life at the maximum extent- There was a provision for referral of cancer patient to Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai- Our Sympathy is with the complainant, who is a poor widow running from pillar to post since seven years- The claim of complainant about the expenditure incurred and bills is genuine-Hence, the denial of reimbursement of medical bills is unjust and not proper on behalf of OPs and a deficiency in service.” Learned counsel for the complainant further draw our attention towards the case law titled as Gurnam Singh Versus Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, 2006(1) PLR page 84 and another case law titled as Baljinder Kaur Versus State of Punjab 2008(2) SCT page 820.

9.                     On the other hand,. Ld counsel for the ops argued that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complain as only Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)  has jurisdiction to decide the grievances, if any and referred the case law titled as Chief Medical Officer Northern Railway Hospital, Jagadhri Workshop Versus Arvinder Pal Singh, First Appeal No. 851 of 2012 decided on 15.11.2012 wherein it has been held that “the impugned order of District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed with liberty to file his claim before Central Administrative Tribunal having competent jurisdiction”

                        And counsel for the ops referred the case law titled as Medical Superintendent, North Railway Hospital and Another Versus Bal Krishan (Deceased) through LRs, Revision Petition No. 875/2013 wherein counsel for the respondent stated that the order given by the State Commission in this case is acceptable and he also requested to withdraw the present complaint with liberty to file a fresh complaint before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chandigarh.

                        In case titled as Divisional Forest Officer Versus Aravindrakasa Menon 2002(3) CPR 189 wherein it has been held by the State Consumer Commission KERLA that:- “Constitute of India- Article 226- Consumer protection Act,1988 – Section 2(i) (d) – C0nsumer- Complaint by retired Govt. Servant before Consumer Forum for award of interest on delayed payment of commutation benefits – Forum allowed claim but was alleged to have overlooked objection that delay was because of employee himself as disciplinary proceeding were pending against him – Writ petition questioning jurisdiction of Consumer Forum – Govt Servant not be treated as a Consumer vis-à-vis his employer – Dispute adjudicate by the forum was without Jurisdiction and award was a nullity ,void ab-initio”

                        In another case as Maharashtra State Electricity Board Versus Madhukar Vital Kale (since Deceased) through legal representatives 2010 CTJ Page 675 (CP) (NCDRF) it has been held that:-  Undisputedly ,Since respondent had been employee of the authority ,this being a dispute between the employer and the employee, would not fall within the purview of “service” to attract beneficial provision incorporated under Consumer Protection Act.”

                        Even in the recent decision cited as Union of India & others Versus Ram Dayal 2012(1) CPJ page 9 NC, Hon’ble National Consumer Commission held that the employee not a consumer of his employer with the following observations:-

            “3.  Ld. Counsel for the petitioners on the strength of decision of this commission in the bench of Revision petition no.961 of 1997, The Comptroller & Auditor General of India & Anr. Versus .Shiv Kant Shankar Naik 2003(1) CPJ 276(NC), has argued that the consumer fora had erred in entertaining the complaint relating to the present grievance of the complainant. We find force in this contention because admittedly the complainant was employed as a Fire Engine Driver in the ordnance depot under the ministry of Defense and, therefore, he was a central Govt. employee within the meaning of Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, which is prior in time. This legislation provides for the redressal of the grievances of the employee of the Central Govt. employee. Taking note of the provision of the Act this Commission in the above noted case had clearly held that the dispute raised by the complainant was not a consumer dispute nor the complainant was a consumer as the Accountant General was not rendering any service to the complainant within the meaning of C.P. Act, 1986. This decision was followed with the approval in revision petition No. 3878 of 2009 ,Om Parkash Sethi Versus Accountant General Haryana (A & E) ,III(2010) CPJ 289(NC).

10.                   Without commenting on the merit of the case, After hearing both the parties, and going through the case Law referred(supra) by counsel for the ops titled as  Chief Medical Officer Northern Railway Hospital, Jagadhri Workshop Versus Arvinder Pal Singh, First Appeal No. 851 of 2012 decided on 15.11.2012 (Supra) and Medical Superintendent, North Railway Hospital and Another Versus Bal Krishan (Deceased) through LRs, Revision Petition No. 875/2013 (supra), Maharashtra State Electricity Board Versus Madhukar Vital Kale (since Deceased) through legal representatives 2010 CTJ page 675 (CP) (NCDRF) and Union of India & others Versus Ram Dayal 2012(1) CPJ page 9 NC, this Forum is of the considered view that, Admittedly, the complainant is employee as Carpenter having Token No. 6335 since 1981 with the respondents at Jagadhri Railway Workshop under the ministry of Railways and therefore he is Central Government Employee within the meaning of Central Administrative Tribunal Act 1985,which is prior in time. Thus, taking into account of the facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant can get his grievances redressed by filing claim before the CAT. The arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant is not tenable. This forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as such the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable before this forum. The case law referred by the counsel for the complainant is not disputed but not helpful in the present case.

11.                   Resultantly, we are of the considered view that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint and the same is not maintainable in the present Forum. Hence the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to file his claim (if so advised) before Central Administrative Tribunal having competent jurisdiction. Further,  in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industries Institute 1995(3) 583, the complainant may seek exemption /condonation of time spent before the Consumer Fora  to avail remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal having Jurisdiction, within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this order. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 15.11.2016.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                    DCDRF Yamuna Nagar

                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                     MEMBER