D.o.F:4/7/12
D.o.O:16/11/12
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.220 /2012
Dated this, the 16th day of November 2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.RAMADEVI.P : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
T.M.Sherieff,
Ex-Bank officer and the Ex-bank President
Of Pallikkere Co-op Bank Ltd, : Complainant
Bekal Ilyas Nagar, Po.Bekal Fort,Kasaragod
(Adv B.K.Mahin, Kasaragod)
Sree.H.Abdul Kareem,
District Lottery Officer,
Collectorate Kasaragod : Opposite party
Po.Vidyanagar,Kasaragod.
(AGP Kasaragod)
ORDER
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ: PRESIDENT
The averments in the complaint in brief is as follows;
Complainant is aged 74 years. He had undergone Coronary Angio Plasty and spent `157052/- for the same . He submitted an application before the Dist.Collector Kasaragod for getting benefits of Karunya Lottery benevolent fund on 27/6/2012 subsequently he approached opposite party on 30/6/2012 with a copy of the application filed before the Dist. Collector. After perusing the copy of the application opposite party told that as per the government order the benefit can be given for the present and future treatment only and not to the treatments already undergone. At that time complainant asked for a written order in that respect which opposite party refused and he behaved rudely to the complainant. Hence the complaint.
2. According to opposite party complaint is not maintainable since there is no consumer relationship between the complainant and opposite party. On merits the contention of opposite party is as follows:
As per the GO(MS) 7/12/T.D dated 30/1/2012 to help the patients suffering from cancer, kidney, liver, cerebral and heart disease, Fund called Karunya Benevolent Fund has been formed by the Kerala Government. The government issued guidelines as per
GO(MS) 26/12/T.D dated 21/2/2012 for sanctioning the benefit to poor patients. As per direction, 1:3 of the said government order, the benefit can be given for the present and future treatment only, and the same is limited to the treatment in government hospitals and accredited hospitals. There are three types of application forms prescribed with respect to the nature of the treatment required. Strict scrutiny of the applications received in the prescribed forms and the connected records are to be made before accepting the same as per the guidelines issued by the administrator KBF/37/2012 dated 28/4/2012 the applications received should be entered in online by data entry operations. So, the applications, those are not in prescribed forms and without necessary documents could not be received in the office of the opposite party. The application received by opposite party has to be submitted to the committee under the chairmanship of Dist. Collector and the committee will give recommendation after the scrutiny to the state level committee and the state level committee in the authority and authorized body to sanction the benefit. The above facts and procedure were explained to the complainant by the opposite party and asked him to proper application for the present and future treatment with relevant records. But the complainant got angry started to explain about himself. When it is told that there is no scope of getting the benefit for the operations already undergone, he left the place. There was no incident as saying incident words and comments as alleged. The opposite party has not uttered such sentences. He was doing his duties and helping the complainant by explaining the formalities. The opposite party has received several applications from poor patients and sent the same for sanction of higher committees and several such patients have already received the benefit through the office. From the above it can be gathered that the application of the complainant is not rejected but he was asked to file proper application for the present and future treatment with relevant records. But the complainant got angry and started to explain about himself.
3. The first issue to be considered is whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
The learned counsel for the complainant B.K.Mahin has submitted that complainant is also used to take Karunya Lottery tickets and hence he is a beneficiary of the Karunya Benevolent Fund Scheme and therefore he is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.
In order to reach just and correct finding we therefore gone through the official Web portal of Govt. of Kerala. The Karunya Benevolent Fund scheme is described as follows:
Karunya Benevolent Fund is providing financial assistance to under-privileged people suffering from acute ailments like Cancer, Haemophilia, Kidney and Heart diseases and for Palliative Care. The amount for the health scheme is raised through lottery. This welfare measure will be helpful to those who suffer from ailments, the cost of treatment of which are proved to be unbearable to lower and even middle strata of society. The income generated through the sale of Karunya Lottery is exclusively devoted for extending financial assistance to the purpose
4. From the above it is clear that the Kerala State Lottery Department is running the Karunya Benevolent Fund Scheme from the income generated through the sale of Karunya Lottery tickets . If that be so every one who purchasing a Karunya lottery ticket is contributing to the scheme and therefore such a person can be considered as a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Shivkumar Joshi reported in AIR (2000) SC 33(Supreme Court) has discussed an important question of law whether the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 can be invoked against the Provident Fund Commissioner by a member of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme. The Hon’ble Apex Court referring their earlier judgments in the case of Lucknow Development Authority vs M.K.Gupta I (1994) 1 SCC 243, Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund vs Kartik Das (1994) 4 SCC 225, S P Goel vs Collector of Stamps Delhi I (1996) 1 SCC 573, State of Orissa vs Divisional Manager LIC & Another (1996)8 SCC 655, Sonia Bhatia vs State of UP & Ors (1981(2) SCC 585 has held that the service rendered by the Employees Provident Fund Commissioner to an employee will come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act since the administrative charges are also recovered from the contribution paid by the employer and employee and those administrative charges are for meeting its normal administrative expenses. And, obviously as the payment of contribution includes the payment of administrative charges, the scheme is one for consideration.
6. The issue on hand is akin to that of the case cited supra. The Karunya Benevolent Fund Scheme is run from the income generated through the sale of Karunya Lottery tickets. So every purchaser of Karunya Lottery ticket is contributing for the administration of Karunya Benevolent Fund Scheme. Therefore he can be considered as the consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.
7. Therefore, we hold that complaint against the non allotment of Fund to a Karunya Lottery ticket purchaser from the Karunya Benevolent Fund is maintainable before the FORA constituted under the Consumer protection Act.
8. The opposite party in his version has submitted that he directed the complainant to file a proper application for the present and future treatment with relevant records. But the complainant got angry. This statement shows that the application of the complainant is not rejected by the opposite party.
In the above circumstances we direct the complainant to file a proper application to the opposite party in the prescribed proforma pertaining to his treatment (including past, present and future) within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On receiving the same the opposite party should consider the same within 30 days from the date of receipt of application subject to his limitations as per the orders issued by the government pertaining to the allotment of Karunya Benevolvent Fund to its beneficiaries. In this circumstance there is no order as to costs.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
eva
