Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/134/2022

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE AND ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANJIV DUTT SHARMA S/O LATE SH D D SHARMA PRESENTLY WORKING AS PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSIO - Opp.Party(s)

KARAN BHARDWAJ ADV.

10 Nov 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	134 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	12.10.2022
Date of Decision	:	10.11.2022

 

 

 

 

 

1. Principal Secretary Health & Family Welfare, Ministry of Health and F.W., Government of India, CGHS, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, 4^th Floor, Kendriya Sadan, Sector 9-A, Chandigarh.

 

2. CGHS (Central Government Health Scheme), through the Additional Director, CGHS, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, 4^th Floor, Kendriya Sadan, Sector 9-A, Chandigarh.

 

…Appellant/opposite parties

 

V e r s u s

 

Sanjiv Dutt Sharma S/o Late Sh. D.D. Sharma, Resident of House No. 643/GF, Cassia, New Chandigarh, P.O. Tira, Mullanpur, District Mohali. Presently, working as President, District Consumer Commission, Mohali.

….Respondent/complainant

BEFORE:

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT. MRS.PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER. MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER MR.PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER.

  

Present:-     Sh. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.

 

 

PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

                   This appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties, as they are aggrieved of the order dated 24.08.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh, whereby consumer complaint bearing no.526 of 2020  filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed as under:-

“…….For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed:-

[a]    To issue the medical card to the Complainant forthwith;

[b]    To refund an amount of Rs.8,000/- to the Complainant which was got deposited from him in excess;

[c]    To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and for causing harassment caused to him.

[d]    To pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by Opposite Parties; thereafter, Opposite Parties shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [b] [c] & [d] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till the same are paid, apart from compliance of directions contained in sub-para [a] above.…..”

2.           Following facts narrated by the complainant in his complaint were noted down by the District Commission in the order impugned:-

 

“……Succinctly put, the material facts giving rise to the present Consumer Complaint are, the Complainant by virtue of his employment with the Railway Claim Tribunal as Judicial Member from 2015 to 19.04.2020, approached the Opposite Parties for becoming Member of the Central Government Health Services (for brevity ‘CGHS’), upon which he was informed to deposit half of the Basic Pay as the requisite deposit of becoming the Member of CGHS.  It has been alleged that the Opposite Parties made the Complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- for Pensioners Contribution for CGHS Card, which was in excess of Rs.8,000/- as the 50% of the Basic Pay of the Complainant comes to Rs.1,12,000/-. After receiving the amount, the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties a number of times to issue him the medical card, but the Opposite Parties put off the matter on one ground or the other. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties…..”

 

3.           Joint written reply was filed by the opposite parties,  which was noted down by the District Commission as under:-

 

“…..Opposite Parties contested the Complaint and filed their reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that per clarification dated 16.12.2020 received from the Directorate General of CGHS, CGHS facilities cannot be extended to retired employee of Railway Claim Tribunal. Based on the said clarification, the Complainant was advised to submit his bank detail/cancelled cheque for refund of contribution submitted by him along with the application. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint….”

4.           The complainant filed rejoinder to the written reply of the opposite parties controverting their stand and reiterating his own version.
5.           The District Commission after hearing counsel for the parties and on going through the documents on record, partly allowed the complaint in the manner stated above. Hence this appeal.
6.           We have heard the contesting parties and scanned the material available on the record.
7.           The only short question that falls for consideration is, as to whether, the District Commission was  right in holding that the  complainant being retired Central Government employee is entitled for the CGHS facilities from the opposite parties or not? It may be stated here that the fact that the complainant is a retired Central Government employee is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that application submitted by the complainant for issuing of pensioner CGHS card in the office of Opposite Party No.2 on 03.07.2020 was accepted. We fully agree with the findings given by the District Commission to the effect that the complainant being Judicial Member of Railway Claim Tribunal enjoyed every status of Additional Secretary, Government of India and as such, he is entitled to all the facilities at par with the Additional Secretary, which is governed under Central Government Rules. Thus, to our mind, the complainant is definitely entitled to the medical treatment and hospital facilities as provided in the CGHS and in places where the CGHS is not in operation, as provided in the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944. The relevant Rule 14 and 16 of the Railway Claim Tribunal (Salaries & Allowances and Conditions of Services of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members) Rules, 1989, which accounts for Annexure C-2, makes the complainant entitled for issuance of CGHS Card for medical treatment.
8.           However, in the interest of justice, we feel it necessary to pass directions to the effect that since the complainant has been granted facility of medical treatment under CGHS, as such, he shall not be entitled to get the same, in parallel, from any other Government Organization. With these directions, we dismiss this appeal at the preliminary stage with no order as to cost.
9.           Consequently, application bearing no.760 of 2022 filed by the appellants, seeking stay of the order impugned stands dismissed having been rendered infructuous.
10.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
11.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

10.11.2022

Sd/-

[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd-

(PADMA PANDEY)

          MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

Rg.