Haryana

StateCommission

A/528/2017

STATE OF HARYANA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SARLA MADAN ALIAS SARLA THATAI - Opp.Party(s)

GOVT.PLEADER

20 Feb 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      528 of 2017

Date of Institution:      03.05.2017

Date of Decision :      20.02.2018

1.      State of Haryana through Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad.

2.      Commissioner-cum-Director General School Education Haryana, Siksha Sadan, Sector-5, Panchkula.

3.      District Education Officer, Sector 16, Faridabad.

4.      Principal Government Girls Model Senior Secondary School, Old Faridabad.

                             Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Sarla Madan alias Sarla Thatai w/o Sh. R.N. Thatai, Resident of House No.310, Sector-9, Faridabad.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Argued by:          Shri Ashok Pasricha, Government Pleader for appellants.

                             None for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

        This appeal has been preferred against the order dated February 15^th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.281 of 2013.

2.                Sarla Madan alias Sarla Thatai – complainant (respondent herein) retired as Principal of Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Faridabad Old. Husband of the complainant Shri R.N. Thatai, was admitted in QRG Central Hospital, Faridabad on June 13^th, 2011 as an indoor patient as he was suffering from Hernia disease. He remained admitted in that hospital from June 13^th, 2011 to June 15^th, 2011. The complainant spent an amount of Rs.38,955/- to make payment of the hospital bills and the amount spent for purchase of medicines and tests etc. After discharge from the hospital, the complainant submitted her claim for reimbursement of the total amount mentioned above spent for treatment of her husband to the District Education Officer, Sector-16, Faridabad – Opposite Party No.3. Till the date of filing of the complainant, the opposite party No.3 neither gave opportunity of hearing to the complainant nor accepted the claim nor returned the bill with objections in this regard. The complainant had also written letter dated May 30^th, 2012 to the opposite party No.3. Ultimately, a legal notice was served upon the opposite parties by the complainant on August 04^th, 2012. The complainant received from the opposite parties letter dated September 05^th, 2012 but the same was of no consequence.

3.                The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.38,955/- as medi-claim spent by the complainant for treatment of her husband; to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and an amount of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

4.                The opposite parties No.1 to 3 did not appear before the District Forum and were proceeded ex parte vide order dated September 11^th, 2013. The opposite party No.4 – Principal Government Girls Model Senior Secondary School, Old Faridabad in her written version has taken plea that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complaint is barred by limitation and that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. It is pleaded that the complainant being retired Government employee is raising her fixed medical allowance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month alongwith monthly pension. The complainant is not legally entitled to claim any amount on account of medi-claim etc from the opposite parties. It is also pleaded that QRG Central Hospital, Faridabad is not on the panel of Haryana Government. Moreover, the claim submitted by the complainant is still in process. It is pleaded that the complainant never informed the opposite parties regarding illness of her husband, admission in hospital and treatment. It is not a case of deficiency in service and prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed with cost.

5.                Parties led evidence in support of their respective claims before the District Forum.

6.                After hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated February 15^th, 2017 passed by the learned District Forum, complaint filed by the complainant was allowed directing the opposite parties to make payment of the total amount spent by the complainant for treatment of her husband as per rules applicable in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh or All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi and in the alternative to pay 75% of the total amount spent Rs.38,955/- incurred in QRG Central Hospital, Faridabad with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint and to pay an amount of Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses.

7.                Aggrieved with the impugned order dated February 15^th, 2017 passed by the learned District Forum, the appellants-opposite parties have filed the instant First Appeal No.528 of 2017 with a prayer to set aside the impugned order and to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant.

8.                None appeared on behalf of the respondent-complainant despite notice on February 20^th, 2018 date fixed.

9.                We have heard learned Government Pleader for appellants and perused the case file.

10.              It is admitted fact that the complainant is 77 years old lady retired as Principal Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Old Faridabad after attaining age of superannuation. From the pleadings and other record on the file there appears to be no controversy of any type that husband of the complainant Shri R.N. Thatai who was suffering from Hernia disease was admitted in QRG Central Hospital, Faridabad on June 13^th, 2011 and remained admitted in that hospital up to June 15^th, 2011. As per version of the complainant she spent an amount of Rs.38,955/- and during the period her husband remained admitted in QRG Central Hospital, Faridabad for making payment of hospital bills and for purchase of medicines etc. It is evident from the hospital bills/receipts and other record (Exhibits C-4 to C-14).  Much discussion is not needed of the above mentioned documents as the opposite party No.4 did not raise any dispute in this regard in its written version also. It is also admitted that the complainant submitted medical reimbursement bills amount to Rs.38,955/- to the opposite party No.3 – District Education Officer, Faridabad on October 21^st, 2011. As the medical bill of the complainant was not sanctioned, Legal Notice dated August 04^th, 2012 (Exhibit C-16) was served upon the opposite parties but of no avail. Thereafter, a reminder dated May 30^th, 2012 (Exhibit C-15) was sent to the opposite party No.3.  Apart from it, the complainant had written letter dated September 05^th, 2012 (Exhibit C-20) in this regard. The medical reimbursement bill was submitted on dated May 30^th, 2012 (Exhibit C-15). The complainant is entitled for reimbursement of the amount spent for treatment of her husband being dependent and family member. In the written version plea has been taken that QRG Central Hospital, Faridabad is not on the panel of Haryana Government but as per letter No.2/1392/2011/HB dated 06.12.2011 issued by Health Department of Haryana Government, QRG Central Hospital, Faridabad has also been recognized as on the panel of Haryana State Government.

11.              After close perusal of the entire record on the file it clearly appears that the opposite parties did not behave properly with the complainant who is 77 years old retired Government employee. Unfortunately, husband of complainant developed Hernia disease and on account of illness, complainant’s husband had to remain admitted in QRG Central Hospital, Faridabad for treatment of her husband and for which the complainant had to spent an amount of Rs.38,995/-. It is unfortunate that the opposite parties did not redress the grievance of the complainant. She submitted medical bills for reimbursement on October 21^st, 2011.  Despite repeated requests and issuing reminder time and again neither the medi-claim amount spent has been reimbursed nor any objection has been raised by any competent authority.  Facing this situation, the complainant preferred to file the present complaint on July 31^st, 2013.  The opposite parties No.1 to 3 did not think it proper even to appear in the proceedings of this case. The opposite party No.4, the Principal of the School, filed written version on November 11^th, 2013 taking plea that the case of the complainant was in process. The learned District Forum decided complaint on February 15^th, 2013.  During this period also, the claim of the complainant remained under process and till today the claim of the complainant is still awaiting decision of the opposite parties. Certainly, it is very unfortunate that medi-claim bill submitted by a female retired employee whose husband was suffering from Hernia disease and who herself was suffering from cancer is still awaiting decision of the opposite parties for the last more than 7½ years. The complaint was filed on July 31^st, 2013.  Indisputably, the QRG Central Hospital, Faridabad is on the panel of Haryana Government. It makes no difference if the complainant is receiving Rs.500/- as medical allowance as the husband of the complainant was an indoor patient during the period for which complainant has claimed medical reimbursement. As per directions issued through letter No.2/8/1988-I HBIII dated May 20^th, 2008 by Health Department Government of Haryana the reimbursement of the amount spent for treatment by a Government employee shall be paid at the PGIMER, AIIMS rates. Vide letter dated 20^th May, 2008 issued by State of Haryana hospitals rates of reimbursement are mentioned as rates of PGIMER plus 75% of the remaining amount. The complainant appears to be satisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum as the complainant did not prefer to file appeal.

12.              As a result as per discussion above in detail, we find no illegality in the impugned order dated February 15^th, 2017 passed by the learned District Forum.  Findings of the learned District Forum stand affirmed and the appeal stands dismissed.

13.              The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 20.02.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL