O R D E R
K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P u/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is a Delhi Govt. Employees. On 21.9.2013 complainant’s son suffered with high fever i.e. Dengue and was admitted in Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in emergency and was discharged on 24.9.2013. It is alleged that complainant incurred a total sum of Rs.29,862/- for treatment of her son. It is further alleged that complainant submitted all the documents in her office on 30.9.2013 for reimbursement of the amount which was spent by the complainant for treatment of her son, but the payment has not been received till date. It is alleged that a written complaint was sent to the Chief Engineer and Secretary of the Department but no action has been taken. It is alleged that complainant sent a reminder to the Secretary for reimbursement of the above said amount but all in vain. It is alleged that as a DGHS card holder, there is deduction of an amount of Rs.125/- in her salary per month. On these facts complainant prays that O.P be directed to pay the reimbursement amount of Rs.29,862/- alongwith interest and also to pay cost and compensation as claimed.
2. O.P appeared and filed its written statement. In its written statement O.P has not disputed that complainant’s son was admitted in Hospital for treatment of Dengue. It is alleged that the complainant submitted her claim in the office on 30.9.2013 and the case was marked to the higher authorities for approval on 17.10.2013. It is alleged that the higher authorities raised some queries and returned the case to the division on 18.11.2013. It is alleged that the complainant was herself dealing asstt. being the UDC, she instead of replying the queries of the higher authorities kept the file pending at her level for nearly two months from 19.11.2013 to 17.1.2014. It is alleged that after clearing the queries case was again sent to the higher authorities for approval. It is alleged that finally the case was sent to Directorate of Health, GNCTD for approval on 19.2.2014 and received back on 21.3.2014. It was received by the division on 24.3.2014 i.e. at the end of the financial year, therefore due to non-availability of funds, the claim could not be paid during the month of March 2014. It is alleged that the claim was finally preferred with PAO-XII and a cheque amounting to Rs.10,481 was handed over to the complainant on 16.4.2014. It is clear that the case always remained in process and not delayed for more than 10-15 days at every stage except when the matter kept pending for two months with the complainant herself. Dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Complainant has filed her affidavit affirming the facts alleged in the complaint. On the other hand Shri Narender Singh Pratap Patwal, Ex. Engineer has filed affidavit in evidence on behalf of O.P testifying all the facts as stated in the written statement. Parties have also filed their respective written submissions.
4. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard submission of complainant and Ld. Counsel for the O.P.
5. In the present case the complainant had submitted the claim for sum of Rs.29,862/- on 30.09.2013 and the O.P prepared cheque for the said claim in the sum of Rs.10,481/- dated 11.04.2014 and was handed over to the complainant on 16.04.2014. During the course of proceeding on 12.05.2014 the accounts officer of O.P submitted that cheque in sum of Rs.10,481/- had already been paid to the complainant. However, complainant submitted that she is entitled to cost and compensation and the matter was proceeded with. The record indicates that the department took almost more than six months to process the claim of the complainant. Due to delay she had to approach the consumer forum and the payment was made during the course of proceedings. The O.P attempted to explain the delay that the complainant herself was a dealing hand in the office and at one point of time she kept the file for two months. Also the file was sent from one officer to another in the department which consumed some time to process the claim. It is true that red-tapism delays the official process which adversely affects the rights of an individual. The department should have been prompt and expeditious in processing the claim of the complainant who happens to be their own colleague. Rather the poor lady was compelled to approach the forum for redressal of her grievances.
6. Keeping in view the discussions stated above, we are of the opinion that there was deficiency in service by O.P. We are also view that ends of justice will be met, if we direct the O.P to pay Rs.2,000/- towards harassment mental agony loss of time to the complainant and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation cost.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced this 28th day of December, 2015.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member
