Delhi

North

CC/161/2023

SUMAT PRASAD JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Opp.Party(s)

22 Aug 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

Consumer Complaint No. 161/2023

In the matter of

Sumat Prasad Jain

S/o Late Sh. Raghunat Sahai,

R/o 635, Bara Bagar near Bara Jain Mandir,

Word No.2, Sonipat,

Haryana-131001                                                                                                          …       Complainant

Vs.

Punjab National Bank

Through its Branch Manager

Katra Neel, Chandani Chowk,

Delhi-110006                                                                                                              …     Opposite Party No.1

 

Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Pension Cell (HQ)

Through its Accounts Officer (Pension)

3rd Floor, Dr. S.P. Mukherjee Civic Centre,

Jawaharlal Nehru Marg.

Minto Road, New Delhi-110002                                                                                 …     Opposite Party No.2

 

ORDER

22.08.2023

 

Present:       Shri Parthiv J Mehta, Ld. Advocate for Complainant.

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

On the last date of hearing, we have heard the arguments of Ld. Advocates for the Complainant on the admissibility of the complaint before reserving the order on admissibility of the complaint.

2. At the onset, it is important to refer to facts of the complaint in brief. The Complainant herein is a retired employee of Municaipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) (OP-2 herein) and is having his pension account bearing no. 0113xxxxxxxx7937 at Punjab National Bank (OP-1 herein), Chandni Chowk branch. The Complainant retired from the services on 31.01.2010. At the time of retirement, the Complainant was not enrolled into the Municipal Pensioner Health Scheme offered by OP-2 and was only receiving medical allowance of Rs. 500/- per month in his pension account. Subsequently, the Complainant decided to join the Municipal Pensioner Health Scheme and moved an application dated 23.09.2021 to OP-2. On 27.10.2021, OP-2 requested OP-1 to discontinue the payment of monthly allowance of Rs. 500/- w.e.f. 01.10.2021. It is the case of the Complainant that OP-1 bank did not stop paying monthly health allowance of Rs. 500/- to the Complainant w.e.f. 01.10.2021. Subsequently, when the OP-1 bank realised its mistake, it recovered the amount so paid to the Complainant on account of monthly health allowance, and deducted a sum of Rs. 3,500/- each on two occasions on 20.07.2022 and 13.12.2022. It is also an admitted fact that that the contribution for enrolling in Municipal Pensioner Health Scheme, which was Rs. 78,000/-, was paid by the Complainant to the OP-2 only on 01.09.2022 by way of a demand draft dated 04.08.2022. The receipt dated 01.09.2022 issued by OP-2 indicating such payment is annexed with the complaint. Thereafter, the Medical Health Card under the Municipal Pensioner Health Scheme was also issued by OP-2 on 01.09.2022.

3. It is the case of the Complainant that his medical bills for the treatments during the period from 03.10.2021 to 14.10.2021 were not reimbursed by the OP-2 as OP-1 continued to make payment of the monthly health allowance which allegedly prevented the Complainant to join the Municipal Pensioner Health Scheme. He accordingly sought directions to the OPs for clearing the medical bills of the treatment which amounts to Rs. 2,78,450/- and compensation for alleged deficiency of service.

4. We have raised the question as to how this matter is a consumer dispute in view of the fact that the issues so raised by the Complainant herein is related to his pensionery benefits. In reply, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant argued that the Complainant has raised the issue of deficiency of service by the OP-1 bank, which was required to stop payment of the monthly health allowance w.e.f. 01.10.2021, but did not stop payment despite clear direction from OP-2. Non-stopping of payment of monthly health allowance despite clear direction from OP-2 amounts to deficiency of service. In support of his arguments, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Kondareddygari Adinarayanareddy vs. State Bank of Hyderabad [RP No. 71/2013, decided on 20.07.2022]. But in our opinion, this judgment does not help the Complainant. In Kondareddygari case (supra), it was argued by the Complainant therein that grievance relating to the withholding of the provident fund (bank contribution) and the gratuity are consumer disputes. This argument was not accepted by Hon’ble National Commission and it was held as under:

“As far as gratuity is concerned, it is undisputedly a service matter and as such it is not within the purview of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

As far as provident fund (bank contribution) is concerned, though it is settled that an employee-member of the employees' provident fund scheme is a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, 1986 the same cannot be said of the bank's provident fund scheme. We also take note of the learned amicus curiae's submission that in a given case examination of the provident fund (bank contribution) may inter alia include examination of the vires of the relevant rules and regulations that govern the bank’s provident fund scheme. Also, the pristine rule in vogue is that the issues relating to the entire gamut of terminal benefits as a whole, including provident fund (bank contribution) and gratuity, has been the subject-matter of adjudication by the competent services tribunal or civil court. Selectively segregating one particular benefit and taking it to the consumer protection fora is neither desirable nor tenable or sustainable.”

5. In this judgment, Hon’ble National Commission has underlined that the issue related to entire gamut of terminal benefits are out of preview of Consumer Fora (as District Consumer Commission then was). In the case in hand, the issues raised in this complaint, including availment of the Municipal Pensioner Health Scheme, delay in enrolment in the scheme and the non-payment of the bills of the treatment are part of the retirement benefit being availed by the Complainant and the same are not within the domain of this Commission to adjudicate.

6. In the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs. Kartick Das [(1994) 4 SCC 225] Hon'ble Supreme Court was examining the definition of "Consumer" and has opined as under:

"26. The consumer as the term implies is one who consumes. As per the definition, consumer is the one who purchases goods for private use or consumption. The meaning of the word 'consumer' is broadly stated in the above definition so as to include anyone who consumes goods or services at the end of the chain of production. The comprehensive definition aims at covering every man who pays money as the price or cost of goods and services. The consumer deserves to get what he pays for in real quantity and true quality. In every society, consumer remains the centre of gravity of all business and industrial activity. He needs protection from the manufacturer, producer, supplier, wholesaler and retailer."

7. Further, in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Examination School Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha [(2009) 8 SCC 483] has held that the Consumer Protection Act was enacted to cover in its net the service offered or referred for a consideration. The services rendered for a consideration are presumed to be a commercial activity in its broadest sense (including professional activity or quasi- commercial activity) but the Act does not intend to cover the discharge of statutory function and the beneficiary of any authority performing a statutory function is not a consumer qua the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

8. In Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors Vs. Dir. Health Services, Haryana [(2013) 10 SCC 136], Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the statutory provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted to deal with the rights of the consumer wherein marketing of goods/or services as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are concerned. With respect to the rights of the government servant and applicability of the Consumer Protection Act on the government raised by the government servant, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the government servant cannot raise any dispute with respect to his service condition or payment of gratuity or GPF or any other retiral benefits before any of the Forums under the Consumer Protection Act. In this regard, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“20. In view of the above, it is evident that by no stretch of imagination can a government servant can raise any dispute regarding his service conditions or for payment of gratuity or GPF or any of his retiral benefits before any of the Forum under the Act. The government servant does not fall under the definition of a "consumer" as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. Such government servant is entitled to claim his retiral benefits strictly in accordance with his service conditions and regulations or statutory rules framed for that purpose. The appropriate forum, for redressal of any of his grievance, may be the State Administrative Tribunal, if any, or Civil Court but certainly not a forum under the Act.

21. In view of the above, we hold that the government servant cannot approach any of the forum under the Act for any of the retiral benefits.”

9. As we have recorded earlier, Hon'ble National Commission in the matter of Kondareddygari Adinarayanareddy (supra) has also reiterated that any grievance regarding withholding pensionary/ retiral benefit of the Complainant is an issue that has to be adjudicated upon by the civil court or competent tribunal and not by the Consumer Commissions and such complaints are not maintainable before Consumer Commissions.

10. In the case in hand, the issues so raised by the Complainant are directly related to his pensionary/ retitral benefits, and the same cannot be adjudicated upon by this Commission. As a result, this complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground.

11. Before parting, we also observe that the Complainant herein has made the payment of the contribution of Rs. 78,000/- for joining the Municipal Pensioner Health Scheme only on 01.09.2022 and accordingly the Medical Health Card under the Municipal Pensioner Health Scheme was issued on the same date. In order to get the benefits of the Municipal Pensioner Health Scheme, not only stopping the monthly health benefit allowance by OP-1 bank in compliance of the request issued by OP-2 was necessary, but the contribution of Rs. 78,000/- for joining the Municipal Pensioner Health Scheme by the Complainant was also necessary. Once the condition of making of contribution was not fulfilled, the Complainant cannot join the Municipal Pensioner Health Scheme and get the benefits of the said scheme. As the bills for the medical treatment of the Complainant predates the payment of contribution to the Municipal Pensioner Health Scheme, the Complainant cannot allege that such denial of reimbursement of his medical bills was solely because of non-stopping of the payment of monthly health benefit allowance. Hence, we also observe that there is no merit in the allegations so raised by the Complainant against the OPs in this complaint. Accordingly, this complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground also.

12. In view of the observations and reasoning given in this order, the complaint is dismissed at admission stage itself. It is, however, clarified that this order shall not prevent the Complainant from availing any other appropriate legal remedy in accordance with law, if so advised.

 

 

___________________________

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President

 

 

___________________________

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member

 

 

___________________________

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member