Kerala

Kasaragod

C.C.32/2006

Amina - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Commissioner - Opp.Party(s)

Suhas

01 Jan 2009

ORDER


IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
OLD S.P. OFFICE, KASARAGOD
consumer case(CC) No. C.C.32/2006

Amina
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Commissioner
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. K.T.Sidhiq 2. P.P.Shymaladevi 3. P.Ramadevi

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

D.o.F;7/1/06

D.o.O:9/12/08

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KASARAGOD

                                     CC. NO.32/06   

           Dated this, the 9th day of December 2008

PRESENT:

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                         : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                    : MEMBER

SMT.P.P.SYAMALADEVI          : MEMBER

 

1.Amina, W/o K.A.Moidu,

2. Pallichikunhi,

w/o late Aboobacker,

both are R/at Moojimudi House,               : Complainants

Koipady Kadappuram, Po.Kumbla,

Kasaragod.

(Adv.Rajesh.K, Kasaragod)

 

 

 The Commissioner,

Kerala Fisherman Welfare Fund Board,    : Opposite party

Matsya Board, Trichur Po.

(Adv. C.Damodaran,Kasaragod)

         

                                                        ORDER

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT

 

        Whether  the treatment from a private hospital without reference from a government hospital/ dispensary  will disqualify a fisherman/ or his legal representatives to claim the benefits stipulated under the Kerala Fisherman’s Welfare Fund Board is the question posed before  us in this complaint.

        Amina,  the  complainant  herein is  the wife of Moideen alias K.A.Moidu alias Moideen  kunhi.  He  was a fisherman entitled to get the benefits of the Kerala Fishermans Welfare Fund.  He was suffering from chronic increstitial nephritis, chronic renal failure and fluid overload with pulmonary oedema and he died on 24/7/05.  As per the scheme Moidu is entitled to get the entire medical reimbursement  but the same was rejected on flimsy grounds.  Hence he died for want of funds.  The application submitted by the mother of K.A.Moidu ie, the 2nd    complainant herein to opposite party for the benefits as per the scheme was rejected on 28/2/04 arbitrarily.  More than rupees two lakhs were spent for the treatment and medicine of the deceased fisherman.  The rejection of the  claim amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint.

2.   Opposite party filed  version contending that  the claim of the mother of K.A.Moideen  that is  the second complainant herein was repudiated as the claim was not as per the terms and conditions of the scheme of the opposite party.  The treatment was done in a private hospital without any reference by a government doctor.  In the absence of a reference by the government doctor the opposite party is not liable to grant any medical assistance as per the guide lines.  By way of an additional version opposite party further  contended that as per  the  scheme their liability is limited to Rs.50,000/-.

 

3.   Complainant No.1 Amina , the wife of deceased fisherman filed affidavit in support of their claim and Exts.A1 to A15 marked.  Ext.B1 is marked on the side of the opposite party.  Both sides were heard and the documents perused.

 

4.   The treatment records and medical bills marked as Ext.A15 series shows that deceased fisherman has undergone  expensive treatments.  The only contention of the opposite party is that as per the guide lines issued to them( a copy of the guidelines is produced and marked as Ext.B1), the treatment aid will be  provided  to a patient if his treatment at private hospitals were as per the reference from a government  hospital.  Against this contention, the complainant No.1 in her affidavit stated that initially the deceased fisherman has taken to Public Health Centre,Kumbla and as there are no facilities at PHC Kumbla, he was referred to Kasaragod Nursing Home and thereafter he was referred to  Mangalore for better management.

5.   The contention of the opposite party is too technical and flimsy. They have no case that the deceased fisherman has not undergone any treatment.  Therefore merely for availing the benefits of the scheme it could not be presumed  that  one will restrict his treatment to government hospital even if there are no facilities available for his treatment.

6.   The counsel for complainant invited our attention to the decision reported in 2005(2) KTT 610 in the case of Kerala Fishermans Welfare Fund Board vs. Kunjan Divakaran.  In the  said decision  the Hon’ble High Court  has held as below:  “ The scheme framed by the Kerala Fisherman Welfare Fund Board is a laudable welfare measure.  Any provision or clause in a welfare legislation or scheme as the case may be, has to be construed and interpreted   liberally.  The attempt should never be to deprive the needy and eligible the benefit of benevolent  legislation or scheme.  An earnest endeavor   should be made to reach out to the victim and wipe the tears of sufferings.  The intent and purport of the legislation must be borne in mind while dealing with the provisions   contained in any welfare legislation or  scheme.   There is no room for a pedantic  view  while interpreting  the provisions contained in a welfare statute.”

       Considering the principle enunciated in the   above judgment,  we are of the view that the repudiation of the claim preferred by the mother of the deceased fisherman amounts to deficiency in service and our answer to the question posed is affirmative and the complainants Nos 1&2  being the legal heirs of the deceased fisherman are entitled  for the benefits as per the scheme of opposite party.

7.   Relief and costs:

          The deceased fisherman was suffering from chronic renal failure .  He had undergone  hemo dialysis many  times .  He was disabled to do his work completely.  Definitely he was entitled for the benefits as per the scheme of the opposite party.  The liability of the opposite party as per the scheme is Rs.50,000/-.  The complainants being the legal heirs of the deceased fisherman  are eligible for that amount.

        Therefore, we allow the complaint and the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainants along with a cost of Rs.2000/-.  Time for compliance  is 30 days from the date of receipt of  copy of order.

     

MEMBER                                              MEMBER                PRESIDENT

Exts.

A1-Copy of death certificate

A2-copy of rejection application

A3-dt.10/10/05-copy of lawyer notice

A4&A5-postal acknowledgments

A6-pass book

A7-identity card

A8-subscription receipt.

A9-copy of sonography of abdomen & pelvis report

A10- copy ofUltrasound report

A11-copy of  medical report issued by Fr.Mullers  MC & hospital Mangalore

A12-Medical  certificate issued by  ‘ ,,                           ,,,

A13-Case summary and discharge record

A14-Certificate issued by Village Officer,Koipady

A15 series- cash receipts  issued by Fr.Mullers Hospital, Mangalore.

B1-  copy of the Guide lines issued by OP

 

 

MEMBER                              MEMBER                              PRESIDENT

                                                           

eva/




......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi