DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:678 of 2010] Date of Institution : 15.10.2010 Date of Decision : 27.12.2011 Sh. Piara Singh (Retired from C.I.S.F) son of S. Gurdit Singh resident of House No.2958, Sector 42-C, Chandigarh. ---Complainant. V E R S U S C.G.H.S., through its Joint Director, Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS), Homeopathic Dispensary Campus, Sector 34, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Party. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Sandeep Singh, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. A. L. Vohra, Advocate for the OP. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh. Piara Singh has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed to :- i) To reimburse the amount spent on various purchase of Travetan Eye Drops along with interest @18% per annum; ii) To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension, harassment and agony for not making full payment as per policy. iii) To pay Rs.15,000/- as costs of litigation. 2. In brief the case of the complainant is that after serving in Indian Navy and Department of Atomic Energy Units and Paramilitary Force/Central Police Organisation for about 33 years, had retired from C.I.S.F. According to the complainant, Government of India is having a scheme known as Central Government health Scheme for retired officials of Central Government. The complainant took a policy under the said scheme after his retirement and Identity Card was issued to him bearing No.P-0962. It is averred by the complainant that on 09.02.2007, he underwent an operation of his left eye but surprisingly, Rs.1,817 were paid less out of the claimed amount. Thereafter, on 07.08.2007, the complainant was operated upon his right eye at PGI, Chandigarh. He submitted a bill dated 09.08.2007 for Rs.15,042/- to the OP for reimbursement under the said CGH Scheme. According to the complainant, this time also, out of the total claim of Rs.15,042/-, only Rs.7,702/- were reimbursed to him by the OP. According to the complainant, he had also incurred a sum of Rs.590/- each on various occasions on Travatan eye drops for the last one year and the said amount has also not been paid to him despite his various visits and requests. The complainant made a representation dated 07.12.2007 (Annexure C-4) to the OP but to no avail. According to the complainant non reimbursement of the full claim amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the written statement filed by OP, a specific preliminary objection has been taken that the complainant is not a consumer and cannot be brought under the definition of “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by any stretch of imagination. According to the OP, the complaint deserves outright dismissal on this very score. On merits, the introductory facts have not been denied. It is asserted by the OP that as per the instructions contained in Govt. of India Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Department of Health), Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi letter addressed to Director, CGHS, New Delhi bearing No.S-11011/36/2001-CGHS-Desk.II/CGHS (P) dated 21.12.2004 (Annexure OP-I) ceiling rate for foldable IOL has been fixed at Rs.900/- or actual expenditure whichever is less and thus, the claim of the complainant was rightly restricted to Rs.900/- for the payment of IOL. It has further been pleaded that Rs.1,817/- were disallowed being the medicines purchased for outdoor treatment. According to OP, medicines purchased from open market for OPD treatment are not admissible in terms of Govt. of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi’s letter No.S-11012/1/91-CGHS(P) (Vol.I) dated 18.03.1992 (Annexure OP-3). OP further pleaded that Travatan Eye drop being imported one is not reimbursable in terms of Govt. of India, O.M. dated 21.12.2009 (Annexure OP-I). In these circumstances, according to OP, the claim has rightly been paid to the complainant as per rules and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 5. Before going into the merits of the case, suffice it to say that OP has taken a preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The learned counsel for the OP vehemently argued that the complainant is not a consumer and the services rendered to him by CGHS do not constitute service as defined in the Act. He cited the judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case The Additional Director, C.G.H.S., Pune Vs. Dr. R. L. Butani reported as I (1996) CPJ 255 (NC) wherein the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission has held in Para No.4 as under: - “4. This Commission has already taken the view that a Government Servant under the Central Government Health Scheme is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and the services rendered to him under the C.G.H.S., does not constitute service as defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. The Supreme Court in a recent decision in Indian Medical Association v. V. P. Shantha & Ors. Dated 13th November, 1995 has ruled that service rendered at a Government Hospital/Health Centre/Dispensary where no charge whatsoever is made from any person availing the services and all patients (rich and poor) are given free service is outside the purview of the expression ‘service’ as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. The payment of a token amount for registration purpose only at Hospital/Nursing Home would not alter the position.” 6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the law setted by the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission in the case of The Additional Director, C.G.H.S., Pune Vs. Dr. R. L. Butani (supra), we are of the considered opinion, the complainant is not a consumer qua C.G.H.S. 7. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation. 8. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 27th December 2011. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
[Complaint Case No.678 of 2010] ORDER Argued By: Sh. Sandeep Singh, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. A. L. Vohra, Advocate for the OP. --- As per separate detailed order of even date, this complaint has been dismissed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 27.12.2011 Member President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
