NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2063/2009

CENTRAL GOVT. HEALTH SCHEME - Complainant(s)

Versus

R.P. KOHLI - Opp.Party(s)

MR. ANMOL

04 Jan 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 2063 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 30/09/2008 in Appeal No. 780/2008 of the State Commission Delhi)
1. CENTRAL GOVT. HEALTH SCHEMEMinistry of Health & Family Welfare. Nirman Bhavan New Delhi -110001Delhi ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. R.P. KOHLIE-353,Greater Kailash -I New Delhi ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. DR. P.D. SHENOY ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 04 Jan 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 counsel for the petitioner.

There is a delay of 138 days in filing the revision as per note of the Registry. An application for condonation of delay has been filed. In the said application it is stated that the copy of the order dated 30th September, 2008 was received by the petitioner on 5.11.2008 from the Government Counsel. However, it is nowhere mentioned as to when the Government

-2-

 

Counsel had received the said copy. Besides this, it is stated in the application for condonation of delay that the file was received back after sanction for filing the revision on 26.2.2009. However, the necessary documents which were required for drafting of the revision were not available and which took almost three months and same were provided to the Government Counsel in the month of May, 2009. The revision was filed on 12.6.2009.

The explanation of the petitioner that the documents were not available cannot be accepted since the documents must have been placed before the sanctioning authority and if they were not placed before the sanctioning authority, then the sanction order itself is vitiated. Be that as it may, we do not find that sufficient ground has been made out for condoning delay and the revision is liable to be rejected on this ground alone.

However, coming to the merits of the case, the petitioner had paid the complainant for the treatment which was taken by the complainant in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital itself but declined to pay the expenses incurred by him for taking treatment for Prostate Gland on the ground that the said hospital was not recognized for Urology treatment. When the complainant had taken treatment in the Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, there was no reason

-3-

 

for him to shuttle from one hospital to another especially when he was in a critical condition and the petitioner should have in fact made the said payment. There are concurrent findings of two fora below on the issues involved.

In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the revision as well. The condonation application as also the revision are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

 



......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................DR. P.D. SHENOYMEMBER