PER SURESH CHANDRA, MEMBER Since the subject matter involved in both the revision petitions is same and they have been filed against the common order dated 08.12.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (“State Commission”, for short) in F.A. No.863 of 2008, these revision petitions have been considered together and are being disposed of as hereunder. Revision Petition No.2582 of 2009 A complaint in this case was filed by the respondent herein before the District Forum. The complainant is 71 years old Central Government pensioner beneficiary under the CGHS. He was suffering from Hernia during December 2001 and was admitted in Sri Ramchandra Medical College Hospital on 09.1.2002 and discharged on 19.01.2002. He had undergone Hernia operation on 15.1.2002 and spent Rs.17,894/- towards medical charges and medicines Rs.3,116/-. He submitted a bill for reimbursement. The OP organization after a gap of some time issued a cheque for Rs.2,625/- and disallowed a sum of Rs.12,153/-. A consumer complaint was, therefore, lodged by the complainant claiming reimbursement of the balance amount and compensation. The OP organization admitted that the complainant is covered under the contributory Central Government Health Scheme but resisted the complaint. It was submitted that after scrutiny by the committee, a cheque for Rs.2,625/- was issued to the complainant and the remaining amount claimed by the complainant was disallowed since it was not admissible as per rules. It was denied that there was any deficiency in service on their part and hence they were not liable to pay any compensation. On appraisal of the issues and the evidence adduced, the District Forum accepted the complaint and directed the OPs 1 to 3 to jointly and severally reimburse Rs.12,153/- and a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost. Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, the OPs 1 to 3 challenged the same before the State Commission through Appeal No.863 of 2008. The State Commission vide its impugned order allowed the appeal in part and the order of the District Forum was set aside in so far as the direction to the OPs to reimburse the sum of Rs.12,153/- was concerned, to the complainant. The other directions of the District Forum were upheld. It is against this order of the State Commission that the present revision petition has been filed. 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 120 days in filing the revision petition. We have perused the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay. The reasons/explanation given by the petitioner in support of the application are reproduced below:- “1. It is most respectfully submitted that present appeal has been filed against the order of Ld. State Commission. The Ld. State Commission has passed this order on 8.12.2008 and received by the office of additional director CGHS, Chennai. 2. The petitioner No.1 after examined the order consulted with the senior standing counsel at Chennai and copy of order with opinion was sent to the office of Director, CGHS at Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi for necessary directions and further action. 3. The office of Director, CGHS thoroughly examined this order passed by the State Commission Chennai for necessary further action. After examine the order the file was sent to Ministry of Health & Family Welfare for their concurrence. 4. The department of Health sends this file to the Ministry of Law & Justice for their concurrence being a nodal Ministry to take final decision to challenge this order of Ld. State Commission. 5. The Ministry of Law & Justice returned the file with the observation and advice to file an appeal because the order of Ld. State Commission is not clear and without any justified prayer by the respondent. 6. The again the file has to crossed the number of channels as per routine procedures of Government of India which requires some time to follow the all procedures. 7. The delay is not intentional or deliberate in filing the appeal. It was first opined by the senior standing counsel to file an appeal. Because the order was not clear and straight forward so it requires time to complete the all channels for further, necessary action. 8. That after this exercise there was some delay for the appointment of counsel. Further the Hon’ble Courts were on vacation. After opening of the court this appeal is before this Hon’ble Court. PRAYER:- It is most respectfully and humbly prayed that in the above facts and circumstances stated this Hon’ble Commission may please condone the delay in filing the accompanying appeal in the interest of justice and hear and decide on merit.” 3. It is seen from the above that no dates have been mentioned by the petitioner while explaining and justifying the delay. Not only this, the period of delay which is sought to be condoned also does not seem to be known to the petitioner since there is no mention about it in the application. It is clear that the petitioner has filed his application with general and vague explanation in a mechanical and routine manner. It is well-established law that each day’s delay beyond the prescribed period of limitation has to be explained satisfactorily by the concerned applicant. In the absence of any dates, we are not at all convinced about the explanation put fourth by the petitioner in support of the condonation application. We are, therefore, not inclined to condone the delay of 120 days. 4. As regards the merits, we find that the deficiency in service on the part of the OP organization has been upheld by the concurrent finding of the fora below based on the facts emanating from the submissions made and evidence adduced by the parties. As regards the relief to the complainant/respondent, we find that the State Commission vide its impugned order has partly allowed the appeal of the petitioners and modified the order of the District Forum keeping in view the admissible rates provided under the CGHS rules governing reimbursement of such medical expenses. The District Forum obviously erred in not considering this aspect while accepting the complaint of the respondent. We, therefore, confirm the order of the State Commission and do not see any reason to interfere with it. The revision petition, therefore, is dismissed both on the grounds of limitation as well as on merits. Revision Petition No.4689 of 2009 In view of our aforesaid order in Revision Petition No.2582 of 2009, this revision petition stands dismissed. | 
