DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.
Complaint No. 260/29.4.2008
Date of order: 21.4.2009

Madan Mohan Lal Sobti son of Sh.Malawa Ram, retired Deputy Chief Controller, Northern Railway-MB, R/o B-XXIV-2910, Sunder Nagar, Rahon Road, Ludhiana-141 007..
(Complainant)
Vs.

1. Government of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Medical Director, Northern Railway Baroda House, New Delhi.
3. The Director (health), Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
4. The General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.
5. The Divisional Railway Manager (P) , Northern Railway, Divisional Office, Ferozepur Cant.
6. The Chief Medical Superintendent, Northern Railway, Ferozepur Cantt.
7. The Senior Divisional Medical Officer Northern Railway Hospital, Ludhiana.
(Opposite parties)

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
….
Quorum:
Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.
Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.
Present:
Sh. Surinder Sharma Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. J.S. Dara Advocate for opposite parties.

O R D E R
T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:

1. Complainant who retired as Deputy Chief Controller, Northern Railway, by filing the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has sought direction against his previous employer to reimburse his medi claim amount of Rs. 91,101.40p along with 24% interest per annum and for deficiency in service be awarded Rs.2,00,000/-.
2. Briefly spelled, case of the complainant is that he retired form Indian Railway on 31.8.1981. After retirement, he was registered under RELHS Scheme of the Railway Department and was issued ID card no.012706 by opposite party no.5 entitling him to avail medical facility for life at Northern Railway, health Unit, Ludhiana. Complainant was having Angina problem since 1986 and underwent CABG on 22.5.1990 at Batra Hospital, New Delhi. On 14.6.1994 underwent Gall Bladder Laparoscopic Surgery in Sirish Hospital, Ludhiana. On 27.1.2008, took admission in C.M.C. Heart Care Centre, Ludhiana where remained admitted upto 1.2.2000 due to chocking sensation. As no facility was in Northern Railway, Health Unit, Ludhiana or D.M.C. ; complainant took the treatment at New Delhi after seeking prior appointment with his doctor Sh. S.K. Gupta who had earlier in 1990 conducted his CABG operation. In New Delhi had to undergo angiography on 7.4.2000 and thereafter angioplasty was also done. He spent Rs.1,91,061.40p on treatment. But his claim was withheld and after pursuing the matter hotly, illegal deduction of sum of Rs.91,061.40p was made from his medicalim. Qua it took the matter with Secretary Railway Board. But despite his taking the matter with different authorities, they failed to clear and pay the claim. Hence, the complaint.
3. Opposite parties have contested the complaint on averments that the complainant is not a consumer entitled to file the complaint as he was employee of the opposite party. No consideration passed interse the parties. Claim pertains to reimbursement of the medical bill, which can not be treated as consumer dispute. Claim is barred by time; complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of parties. They have also controverted other allegations of the complaint. Averred that the complainant has no cause of action and not entitled for the claimed relief.
4. In order to prove their respective contentions, both the parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard the arguments addressed by the ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the record, scanned the documents and other material on file.
6- Unfortunately, senior citizen like complainant, who served Indian Railway for 39 years and retired after putting such service in 1981, has to face such a day, to seek and claim his right. When complainant undisputedly after retirement, got himself registered under RELHS vide card no.012706 (Ex.C1) from opposite party. This registration and issuance of the card authorised complainant and his family for medical facilities under liberalized health schemes. It is under that health scheme, he claimed having taken treatment and undergone angiography on 8.4.2000 in Delhi after taking prior appointment. Because, facility for such ailment, was not available in the health unit of railway at Ludhiana. After angiography, angioplasty was done with deployment of stents on 8.4.2000. That way, incurred Rs.1,91,061.40 , claim of which was submitted for reimbursement, but it was delayed for more than one and a half years, for no fault on his part. Therefore, took up matter to the high ups of the railway, but none bothered for his plight. His file was misplaced by officials of the railway, due to which claim was again delayed. Hence, he provided photo copies of the original bills, vouchers, to recreate the file. His claim was rejected by the CMD, New Delhi, on 14.3.2002. Though CMD could not have dealt with the claim being above Rs.50000/-. Hence, preferred appeal against order of CMD, Northern Railway and thereafter Director Health, sanctioned the claim to the extent of Rs.99,960/- on 27.1.2003. That amount was released on 10.4.2003. Therefore, he felt offended when they illegally deducted a sum of Rs.91101.40 from his medical claim. For release this withheld claim, took up matter with railways authorities and also addressed his grievance to the Hon’ble President of India, Hon’ble Prime Minister and Ministry of Department of Pension, Govt. of India. Then sought information under RTI Act, by filing application dated 2.1.2006, seeking reasons for calculation and paying amount of Rs.99,960/- only. On receipt of reply dated 21.2.2006, noticed error committed by opposite party that for angioplasty with stents procedure, cost of Rs.42,460/- only was sanctioned and then through speed post letter dated 15.3.2006 addressed to Director Railways, requested for release of balance Rs.83,804/-. The C.M.S., Northern Railway, vide letter dated 25.3.2006, intimated misplacing file of the complainant and again supplied copies of bills, vouchers along with affidavit dated 15.9.2006 and also filed appeal under RTI Act, to Senior Dy. General Manager, Appellate Authority, Northern Railway, New Delhi. Then was intimated vide letter dated 16.4.2007 by C.M.S., Northern Railways, that out of Rs.59,244/- between cost of two stents implanted, cost of one stent was payable to the complainant.
7- All these aspects, as referred above, are matter of record and proved through correspondence between the parties, copies of which are Ex.C17 to Ex.C42. Along with complaint, has also placed on record, copies of his medical treatment Ex.C2 to Ex.C13.
8- Before we venture to discuss claim of the complainant, would like to make it clear whether complainant being retiree employee of the railway, can fit in the definition of ‘consumer’, as occurring under section 2 (i) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Retired employee does not seem to have obtained services of employer for availing facility of medical reimbursement of payment. But in similar circumstances and situations, Hon’ble Rajasthan State Commission in a case reported as Nemi Chand Kala Vs State of Rajasthan, Appeal No.1375, decided on 15.1.1999, has declared pensioner as a ‘consumer’ for purpose of reimbursement of expenses of medical treatment. This authority on all force, meet requirements of the definition of ‘consumer’, occurring u/s 2(i) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, we hold and conclude that complainant as a beneficiary, is a consumer, for getting reimbursement of expenses of medical treatment.
9- Now, coming to the case in hand. In order to know entitlement of the complainant, we simply would like to refer two documents Ex.C34 and Ex.C42. Ex.C34 is a letter by Chief Medical Superintendent, Northern Railway dated 16.4.2007, addressed to the complainant. Vide that letter, appeal of the complainant u/s 19 of the RTI Act, 2005, was disposed of. This letter reads as under:-
“It is humbly submitted that after gone through the case, it was noticed that inadvertently, cost of one stent was paid to the applicant, amounting to Rs.42460/- instead of the actual cost of Rs.49454/-(difference of one stent amounting to Rs.6994/- to be paid). Although, two stents were implanted and payment of the other one stent amounting to Rs.52250/- has not so far been paid.

As per ruling, cost of stents are reimbursed in full, hence, total amount of stents to be reimbursed for one stent Rs.52250/- +6990/-(difference of stent) comes out to Rs.59244/-. The case is being processed to Sr. DFM/FZR for vetting of the said proposal so that the post-facto approval would be sought for from CMD/NDLS”.


As such, it is clear admission on part of Chief Medical Superintendent of Northern Railway, Ferozepur Cantt, that the complainant was not paid after submission of reimbursement claim, cost of one stent amounting to Rs.52250/- and cost of one stent was only paid as Rs.42460/- instead of Rs.52250/-. Therefore, was held entitled for amount of Rs.59244/-. The proposal for vetting was forwarded to CMD, New Delhi, for post-facto approval. But no such approval was accorded till now. However, it is apparent that due to error committed by officials of the opposite party, complainant was reimbursed partial cost of one stent of Rs.42460/- against actual cost of Rs.49454/- and cost of another stent Rs.52250/- was not paid. Though, at the time of angiography, two stents were implanted.
10- Another important letter is Ex.C42 dated 8.1.2002, sent by Chief Medical Director, Northern Railways, New Delhi to the complainant regarding his reimbursement claim of Rs.1,91,061.40. It was conveyed under that letter to the complainant that he took treatment from Apollo Hospital, Delhi, whereas under rules, should have come to railway hospital and got referred to another recognized hospital, Apollo or Batra Hospitals. His reasons for not doing so, were sought. Since then, there has been continuous and regular correspondence, for release of reimbursement of claim by the complainant. In these circumstances, it is apparent that complainant had taken treatment from Apollo Hospital, without being referred from any railway hospital, but part of the amount spent on treatment i.e. Rs.99,960/- was already reimbursed by opposite party to the complainant, as conveyed to him vide communication Ex.C39 dated 3.10.2008. Though total claim of reimbursement was of Rs.191061.40. Consequently, there appears no justification on part of opposite party to have withheld and denied rest of the claim of the complainant. By doing so, certainly, opposite party would be guilty of not rendering proper services to its own consumer, who is at the fag end of his life. It was not accepted of the employer to have treated it own employee in such a manner, by forcing him to take up matter since 2000 till now, to get his rightful claim.
11- In these circumstances, to be seen, what amount, would now be entitled to be reimbursed, Now in communication Ex.C34 dated 16.4.2007 of the Chief Medical Superintendent, Northern Railways, Ferozepur, his entitlement is shown for Rs.59,244/-. But complainant vide his communication dated 20.10.2008 Ex.C40, has claimed reimbursement of balance amount of Rs.43500.40. So, it means as per his admission, a sum of Rs.43500.40 is payable to him. Therefore, we feel that complainant shall not be entitled for more than this amount.
12- Sequel to the discussion, we are of the view that opposite party is guilty of not resorting to proper services to it own consumer, by not clearing the reimbursement claim, in entirety. Therefore, we allow this complaint and as a result, order opposite party to pay Rs.43500.40 as reimbursement claim of complainant, within 45 days of receipt of copy of order, failing which shall be liable to pay the same amount with 9% interest p.a. from the date of complaint till payment. For causing harassment and thrusting this litigation on the complainant, who struggled hard during 8 years, to get his right, opposite party ordered to pay compensation of Rs.7000/- and litigation costs of Rs.2000/-. Order copy be supplied to parties free of costs and file be consigned.

Announced on 21.4.2009. T.N. Vaidya, President.
(Inderjit Kaur)

Rajesh Kumar, Member.

1. M.S. Bindra son of Sh. Gurbux Singh Bindra.

2. Paramjit Kaur wife of Sh. M.S. Bindra
Both residents of Flat No.46-F, HIG Flats, Raj Guru Nagar, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana. (Complainants)
Vs.

1. Northern Railways, Head Quarter Office, Baroda House, New Delhi, through its General Manager.

2. Northern Railways, 2nd Floor, Station Building, New Delhi, through its Chief Commercial Manager/Refunds.

3. Northern Railways, through Station Superintendent, Ludhiana, Railway Station, Ludhiana.
(Opposite parties)

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
….

Quorum:
Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.
Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.

Present:
Sh. Puneet Gupta Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Dalip Saggi Advocate for opposite parties.

O R D E R
T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:

1. Complainant is a senior citizen. For self and wife aged 73 years, obtained advance journey-cum-reservation ticket bearing no. 44687802 on 16.3.2006 for traveling on 25.3.2006 by train no.2460, vide PNR No. 232-4277304 from Ludhiana to New Delhi, by paying Rs.548/-. Booked and confirmed seat nos. 61 and 62 were of A.C. Coach C.2. On the day of journey on 25.3.2006, complainant along with his wife at 7.30 A.M. left to the Railway Station, Ludhiana, to catch the train by due departure time of 8.55 A.M. but the train arrived four hours late against the scheduled arrival time. Complainant gets shocked on arrival of the train that there was no coach C2. As the complainant had prior fixed arrangements at New Delhi, so, was compelled to board the train and had to travel while standing in non A.C. coach. Ticket checker also failed to help the complainant and his wife both senior citizens and could not provide them seats. He simply issued certificate no. 761928 requiring them to get the refund of the amount as per rules. Thereafter, despite his written request on 12.4.2006 and reminder dated 20.9.2006 no refund was given. Hence, legal notice dated 14.12.2007 was issued to the opposite parties, who in response issued letters dated 29.2.2008 and 3/2008 admitting non attachment of the A.C. Coach with that train. Claimed in this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that opposite parties failed to arrange and provide proper services, which caused great mental and physical pain, stress to the complainant. Hence, has claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation for said deficiency with direction to refund the fare charged from him with 18% interest per annum.


2. Opposite parties in the reply have not controverted the allegations of the complainant and have admitted booking of confirmed seats of A.C. Chair Car Coach for 25.3.2006 on train no. 2460 from Ludhiana to New Delhi. Also admitted that A.C. Coach could not be attached with that train, as said coach had been sent for overhauling to Lucknow, which was not received back after such overhauling, by due date on 25.3.2006. Hence, there was no deficiency in service. Keeping in view safety of the passengers, defective coach was not attached with the train. Announcements were made for passengers at Railway Station, Ludhiana since morning that the passengers booked to travel by 2nd Chair Car were at liberty to seek refund of the tickets at Ludhiana Railway Station itself. Complainant and his wife were given adjustment on that very train to reach their destination. Complainant never approached the station of destination for claiming the refund on the basis of certificate of the T.T nor he ever filled requisite form to claim the refund. Hence, in the absence of such form, no refund could have been given to him. It is stated that the complaint is not maintainable and this Fora has no jurisdiction to try the same.


3. Both the parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their respective contentions.


4. We have heard the arguments addressed by the ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the file and scanned the documents and other material on record.


5. Admitted aspects are that advance journey-cum-reservation ticket bearing no. 44687802 on 16.3.2006 for traveling on 25.3.2006 by train no.2460, vide PNR No. 232-4277304 from Ludhiana to New Delhi, of A.C. coach were issued in favour of the complainant and his wife. On the day of journey, no coach for which complainant and his wife were booked to travel was attached with the train. Sequel thereto, complainant and his wife had to travel in crowded second class compartment. Vide certificate Ex.C.4 bearing no. 761928 dated 25.3.2006 of ticket checker, complainant and his wife were permitted to travel free on the 2nd class compartment, empowering them to seek refund as per rules.


6. Opposite parties have advanced reason of non attaching A.C. coach with that train on the ground that coach which was to be attached with the train was sent for maintenance purpose to Lucknow, from where was not received by due time of departure of the train on 25.3.2006. Connected grievance of the complainant is that train on that day reached Ludhiana four hours late than scheduled time of arrival, causing harassment to him and his wife. Late arrival of the train, can not be attributed to any negligent act of the opposite parties. It may be due to some technical reason that it reached late. So, reaching late of the train against the scheduled arrival time or departure would not amount to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.


7. Now coming to question of deficiency in service by not attaching A.C. coach against which the complainant and his wife had confirmed reservation. It was for technical reason as per opposite parties that the coach could not be attached. However, whatever may be the reason but the factum remains that the complainant and his wife, both senior citizens, were forced to travel in non A.C. compartment. Allegedly contended that at that age of senior citizen, his comfort was affected when forced to travel in another non A.C. compartment that too without providing any seats. Qua it, affidavit Ex.C.1 of the complainant can be taken correct. Because, while he was permitted vide certificate Ex.C.4 to travel free of charges in compartment AS-4, no seat numbers in the certificate are mentioned. So, it means, complainant and his wife by ticket examiner were adjusted in another compartment AS-4, without providing seats.


8. Hon’ble Delhi State Commission, in case General Manager Northern Railway Vs. Anil Kumar Srivastava 2001 (1) CLT, page 465, in such like situation, where passengers had confirmed tickets reserved to travel in 1st class coach, which coach was not attached, to the complainant awarded Rs.5000/- as compensation. This was done on the ground that if no such A.C. coach was available with the Railway, against which had issued confirmed tickets, they could have intimated the passengers having their complete address. By not doing so, Railway Authorities were held liable for not rendering proper services. In the instant case also, if no such AC coach had been received after service from Lucknow, opposite parties had sufficient time to convey to the persons like complainant in advance. Had they done so, they would have discharged their duties towards its own passengers/ consumers. Hence, by not providing the A.C. coach to the train, may be for any reason, opposite parties still would be guilty of not rendering proper services to its consumers, despite receipt of fare charges in advance.


9. While assessing amount of compensation, due to such deficiency, we have to keep in mind that opposite parties had permitted the complainant and his wife to travel in 2nd class compartment without paying any charges. That aspect shall be born in mind by us.


10. It is not in dispute that till now refund of Rs.548/-, the amount spent by complainant and his wife to travel by them in A.C. coach, has not been made to him despite issuance of certificate Ex.C.4 by the Ticket Examiner. Qua such refund, complainant wrote letter dated 12.4.2006 Ex.C.5 and reminder Ex.C.6 dated 20.9.2006. But nothing heard from them. Then he was compelled to issue legal notice Ex.C.7 dated 14.12.2007, issued to opposite parties under postal receipt Ex.C.8 and received by the Chief Commercial Manager of the opposite party vide acknowledgement Ex.C.9. Then the same was replied vide reply Ex.C10 along with which opposite parties have filed copy of communication dated 12.3.08 Ex.C.12 and dated 10.4.2008 Ex.C.13 addressed to the complainant asking him to submit the PNR number and CFT in original to enable them to do anything. But these communications were sent by the opposite parties after the complainant served legal notice dated 14.12.2007. But no action on his letters Ex.C.5 dated 12.4.2006 and Ex.C.6 dated 20.9.06 was taken.


11. In these circumstances, we feel that opposite parties have faulted by not refunding ticket amount to the complainant. However, on behalf of the opposite parties reference was made to rule “Refund through EDR” that the complainant could have obtained the refund at New Delhi Railway Station on the basis of the certificate Ex.C.4 and he never claimed such refund at New Delhi. So, there was no deficiency in service on their part. The complainant has taken the plea that being an old person, was unable to stand in queue at New Delhi, so, claimed amount from Ludhiana Station Master, from where had purchased the tickets. In the present case, A.C. coach was not attached to the train, so under rules governing Exceptional Refund Data Report, authorities at Railway Station Ludhiana are empowered to refund the amount in favour of the complainant. They simply washed their hands off by permitting the complainant and his wife to undertook journey free of costs in 2nd class coach, without providing seats, but never refunded the amount as per rules as mentioned in certificate Ex.C.4. This act on the part of opposite parties would also amount to deficiency in service on their part.


12. Sequel to the discussions, we allow the complaint and consequently direct opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.548/- to the complainants within 45 days of the receipt of copy of the order, failing which would be liable to pay the same with 9% interest per annum from 1.4.2006 till payment. As complainant and his wife were permitted to travel free of charge, so having regard to that aspect, opposite parties ordered to pay compensation and litigation cost compositly assessed at Rs.1000/-(Rs. One Thousand only).