1.      Sri Sailen Banerjee,

son of late  Ganesh  Chandra Banerjee

of Purbannapara ( Natun Bari), P.O. Makardah,

P.S. Domjur, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711409.

2.      Smt. Gayatri Dirghangi,

wife of Amar Dirghangi, Nutanpara,

Donga  Ghata, P.O. Makardah, P.S. Domjur,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711409.

3.      Smt. Arpita Chakraborty,

wife of Apurba Chakraborty, Tarun Polly,

Natagor, Sodepur, P.S. Ghola,

District – North 24 Parganas.

4.      Smt. Paromita Adhikary,

wife of Shyamalesh Adhikary,

Rash Kholar Math, Khardah, P.S. Khardah,

District – North 24 Parganas.--------------------------------------- COMPLAINANTS.

-          Versus   -

1.      The Assistant Engineer (  Agri-Mech ),

Howrah ( Agri-Mech ) Sub-Division,

I.T.I., Howrah Homes, Ramrajatala,

Howrah – 711104.

2.      The Executive Engineer ( A-M),

Howrah ( Agri-Mech)  Division,

49/2, Gariahat Road,

Kolkata – 700019.-------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  The instant case was filed by the complainants U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986

wherein the complainants have  prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to release the claim amount of Rs. 80,974/- together with Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental  agony and litigation costs as the O.Ps. in spite of repeated requests and submission of modified claim form as per direction of the o.ps., the O.Ps. did not release the amount on some pretexts.  

2.                  The o.ps. in the written version admitted the health scheme entered by Rekha

Banerjee, wife of late Ganesh Chandra Banerjee, ex-mechanic of their organization, but contended interalia that the last bill amounting to Rs. 30,465/- cannot be entertained as the treatment was conducted in Green  View Clinic which is a private hospital.  

3.         Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainants are  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4.      Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. Admittedly Rekha

Banerjee, being a family pensioner, was a member of the Health Scheme of the O.Ps. for her medical attendance and treatment in hospital or institution subject to deduction from her pension till her death. Though the O.Ps. were informed of her admission in West Bank Hospital from 14-04-2011 to 17-04-2011 and bill submitted for Rs. 24,229/-, the same was not reimbursed. Subsequently she was further admitted in the  West Bank Hospital on 30-09-2011 till 03-10-2011 and for better treatment she was shifted to Green View  Clinic Pvt. Ltd. on 03-10-2011 and had to receive treatment there till 06-10-2011. Subsequent bill of Rs. 26,280/- and Rs. 30,465/- though submitted were also not reimbursed. Rekha Banerjee  died on 16-10-2011. In spite of resubmission of the bills claiming Rs. 80,974/- as per the direction of the O.Ps., the same remains undisbursed.  The plea of the O.Ps. is that the bills relating to West Bank Hospital is lying with the superior authority for considerations .  Their further plea is that the 3^rd bill as it generated from the private hospitals ( Green  View ) and is not within the list of eligible hospitals, cannot be entertained. To be precise, the  first two bills amounting to Rs. 50,509/- ( Rs 24,229 + Rs. 26,280/- ) are undisputed.  The 3^rd bill involving Rs. 30,465/- cannot be entertained as it relates to a private hospital.      

5.      Be that as it may, undisputedly Rekha Banerjee since deceased was a member of

the health scheme under the O.Ps.; temporary permit was issued on 05-01-2011 having been valid for 6 months. On its expiry, the O.Ps. though deducted premium did not reissue the temporary permit committing gross negligence and deficiency in service.

6.      With respect to the 3^rd bill amounting to Rs. 30,000/- for indoor treatment and Rs.

3,000/- for O.Ps. treatment, we are of the view that the complainants submitted the claim in conformity with the  Form – III as supplied by the O.Ps. Even the documents were furnished in accordance with their instruction. It appears surprising how the O.Ps. can take a volte face in spite of receiving all the documents together with the claim Form – III. The way the O.Ps. started harassing the complainants on fragile plea cannot be supported from legal point of view. Nor the O.Ps. can avoid the rigours of law.  It is a fit case where the prayer of the complainants shall be allowed.

            Both the points are accordingly disposed of in favour of the complainants.

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 266 of 2013 ( HDF  266 of 2013 )  be and the same is allowed on contest with  costs as   against  the O.Ps. 

      The O.Ps. be directed to release the claim amount of  Rs. 80,974/- in favour of the complainants within  30 days from the date of this order together with the interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of submission of the claim from till full satisfaction.

      The o.ps. do further pay a compensation of  Rs. 20,000/- to the complainants  for causing mental pain and prolonged harassment.

      The complainants are at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )                                               (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )

  President,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                                   President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.

 (  P. K. Chatterjee )

 Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.