RADHANATH SANTRA vs W B S E B

-THIS revision is directed against the order dated 30. 3. 2006 of State Commission, Delhi allowing appeal against the order dated 21. 5. 2004 of a District Forum with direction to the petitioner Bank to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000 to the respondent. District Forum had dismissed the complaint filed by the respondent.

FACTS giving rise to this revision lie in a narrow compass. Respondent/complainant had retired as Assistant General Manager of the petitioner/o. P.-Bank. Petitioner introduced "pnb Retired Officers'' Contributory Medical Benefit Scheme" (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) exclusively for its retired officers w. e. f. 1. 1. 2000. Respondent joined the scheme and paid the amount of Rs. 10,000 as contribution. In February 2002, the respondent wrote a letter to the petitioner that he will undergo operation of his 2nd eye. Thereafter, he underwent operation on 25. 4. 2003. In the meantime, it was decided to close the scheme on 27. 3. 2003 being unviable. On bill for the operation of 2nd eye not being paid, the respondent alleging deficiency in service filed complaint seeking certain reliefs which was contested by the petitioner Bank on a number of grounds including that the respondent is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. District Forum dismissed the complaint solely on the ground of respondent not being a ''consumer''. In appeal filed by the respondent the finding returned by the District Forum in regard to respondent not being a consumer was set aside and particularly taking note of the respondent''s letter dated 9. 2. 2002 that he has been advised to undergo operation of 2nd eye which was done in April, 2003, amount of Rs. 5,000 was awarded as compensation to the respondent by the State Commission. We have heard Shri Jagdeep Kishore for the petitioner Bank and the respondent.

It is admitted by both the parties that after paying contribution of Rs. 10,000 the respondent joined the scheme which had come into force from 1. 1. 2000. Copy of the scheme is at pages 23 to 39. Para 15 of the scheme which is material, runs as follows: "in the event of the Fund being rendered unviable i. e. it is not in a position to sustain the expenditure for the purpose stated herein or for any other reasons considered valid by the Managing Committee, the scheme will be winded up accordingly. The contribution received from the members will be disposed of in a manner to be decided by the Managing Committee. "

Circular/letter dated 27. 3. 2003 (copy at page 40) sent by the Deputy General Manager of petitioner Bank to all offices, omitting immaterial portion, runs as under- "bank introduced PNB Retired Officers'' Contributory Medical Benefit Scheme with the approval of the Board vide Personnel Division Circular No. 1696 dated 7. 12. 1999. Keeping in view the provisions of the above Scheme, on review of the same, it has been observed that the interest generated on the corpus created out of the one time contribution made by the officers is absolutely inadequate to meet the medical claims received from the retired officers for reimbursement. The Board of Directors of the Bank in its meeting held on 23. 3. 2003 has decided as under- (a) to pass the claims of retired officers from 1. 1. 2002 to 31. 3. 2003. (b) refund of Rs. 10,000 without interest to member retired officers and (c) PNB retired Officers'' Contributory Medical Benefit Scheme be withdrawn forthwith. In view of the Board decision, the scheme is being withdrawn forthwith and all retired officers are requested to submit their medical bills (if any) upto 31. 3. 2003 by 30. 4. 2003 so that the same can be settled. "

MAIN thrust of argument advanced by the respondent is that the decision to withdraw scheme was taken abruptly without prior notice to the members and fixation of cut off date of 31. 3. 2003 for making payment of medical claims is arbitrary. To be only noted that the Scheme does not provide for giving prior notice (s) to the members in case the Managing Committee/ Board of Directors of the Bank decide to withdraw the scheme under said para 15. Since the scheme was withdrawn with immediate effect by issuing the said circular/letter dated 27. 3. 2003, the fixation of cut off date of 31. 3. 2003 for passing medical bills of members can not be said to be arbitrary. With the discontinuance of scheme the respondent had ceased to be a ''consumer'' w. e. f. 27. 3. 2003. In our view, as the respondent had undergone operation of 2nd eye after the withdrawal of scheme he cannot claim reimbursement of medical expenses of that operation. Respondent''s letter dated 9. 2. 2002 which was sent more than a year prior to the closure of scheme has no relevance whatsoever in the case. Thus, the order of the State Commission being legally erroneous can not be sustained. During the course of argument, Mr. Jagdeep Kishore, Advocate has stated that irrespective of the outcome in present revision the petitioner Bank will make payment of the compensation as awarded by the State Commission to the respondent.

FOR the foregoing discussion, the revision is allowed and aforesaid order of State Commission is set aside and complaint dismissed. No order as to cost. Amount of Rs. 5,000 will be remitted through a bank draft by the petitioner Bank to the respondent within four weeks. R. P. allowed.