Delhi

StateCommission

A/952/2014

G.M. NORTHERN RAILWAY HEAD QUARTER'S OFFICE - Complainant(s)

Versus

SH. PREM NATH SHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

15 May 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision: 15.05.2015

First Appeal- 952/2014

 

IN THE MATTER OF:-

General Manager,

Northern Railway Head Quarter’s Office

Baroda House, New Delhi

                                                                                  …..Appellant

 

Versus

Sh. Prem Nath Sharma,

R/o: Q, 529, New (E-I)

3^rd Floor, Rishi Nagar,

Shakur Basti, Delhi-110034

 

                                                                                 …..Respondent CORAM

(Justice Veena Birbal, President)

(Salma Noor, Member)

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 (Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1              This is an appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (in short ‘the Act’) wherein challenge has been made to order dated 08.07.2014 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, New Delhi, (in short the ‘District Forum’), in complaint case no. 219/11 whereby the complaint of the respondent/complainant has been allowed and the appellant/OP has been directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 7,500/- inclusive of cost of medicine purchased and Rs. 2,500/- has been awarded towards costs of litigation.

2.             Brief facts relevant to the present appeal as under:

                A complaint under section 12 of the Act was filed by the respondent herein i.e. complainant before the District Forum stating therein that the respondent/complainant is a Retired Loco Inspector, Northern Railway. He is a life member of Railway Employees Health Scheme having Medical Card No. 023792 dated 02.03.2001 and is entitled for the medical aid  from the Railway Hospital for himself and his wife Ms. Trishala Sharma. He had stated that his wife was suffering from Thyroid and was referred by Railway Hospital to INMAS New Delhi. At INMAS contain tests were conducted and medicines were prescribed for treatment of the disease. Accordingly, complainant/respondent approached the Railway Hospital, Shakurbasti for the medicines and further management. The Medical Officer, Railway Hospital, Shakurbasti supplied some medicines which were available and indented the remaining medicines to Divisional Medical Officer, Delhi for supply to be given to the patient after receiving from the stores. However, the remaining medicines indented were not supplied by the Divisional Medical Officer, and as such the respondent/complainant had to purchase the same from the market from his own pocket. Thereafter, respondent/complainant preferred claim for the reimbursement on 19.12.2008. The said claim was regretted by the competent authority vide letter dated 24.01.2009. Thereafter, respondent/complainant appealed to the Chief Medical Director, Northern Railway referred on 19.02.2009 but the request was turned down. Accordingly, he sent a legal notice. However, no reply was sent. Ultimately, respondent/complainant had to file the complaint before the District Forum claiming reimbursement of Rs. 5423.56 for the medicines which the Railway Hospital did not provide him along with interest @ 18% and Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for harassment and inconvenience caused to him.

3.             The above claim was contested by the appellant/OP before the District Forum by filing written statement wherein it was alleged that the substitute medicines were given to the respondent/complainant but he had refused to take the same from the appellant hospital and as such respondent/complainant is not entitled for any relief.

4.             Both the parties led evidence before the District Forum in the form of affidavit.

5.             After hearing the parties as well as going through the material on record, the District Forum had granted the relief as has been stated above to the respondent/complainant.

6.             Aggrieved with the same the present appeal is filed.

7.             Ld. counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned order has been passed without considering the letter dated 17.07.2009 issued by the office of Chief Medical Director of appellant. It is contended that if the said letter is taken into consideration in that event there will be no deficiency on the part of appellant.

8.             We have heard counsel for the appellant as well as gone through the material on record.

9.             The stand of the appellant before the District Forum was that the substitute/equivalent medicines were given to appellant but he refused to accept that same.

10.            The District Forum has taken into consideration the aforesaid stand and has observed that no evidence of refusal was filed by the appellant to substantiate that respondent was supplied with equivalent medicine. It is further observed that nothing is placed on record by appellant/OP to disprove deficiency. Ld. District Forum has also observed that there is nothing to disbelieve the respondent/complainant on oath that the indented medicines were not supplied till 2011, when he filed the complaint.

11             The letter dated 17.07.2009 of the appellant has been considered. The same has been written to the respondent/complainant on the basis of information given by CMS to DLI. However, no such information of CMS/DLI is placed on record. Further, the stand of respondent/complainant in the complaint case as well as in evidence is that the medicines which were available with Medical Officer, Shakurbasti were supplied and the said officer indented the remaining medicines to Divisional Medical Officer, Delhi and the same were never supplied. In these circumstances, the aforesaid letter is of no help to appellant. The Ld. District Forum has rightly not disbelieved the affidavit of the complaint.

        Further the respondent is a senior citizen and amount awarded is a meager amount which includes the cost of medicines purchased from the market for ailment of wife by the respondent/complainant. No illegality is seen in the impugned order.

The appeal is dismissed in limine.

                File be consigned to record room.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

 

 

 

 

 

Rakeeba