Regional Manager Central Warehousing Corporation vs Ch.Laxminarayana

THE respondent is a retired employee of the petitioner Corporation. While in service, he preferred a medical bill for Rs.1,33,678/- towards reimbursement of medical expenses incurred for the treatment of his dependent son Ch. Venu Babu, who had suffered from food poisoning, at Amaravathi Institute of Medical Sciences, Kothapet. Being an employee of the petitioner Corporation, the respondent was entitled for such treatment and reimbursement of expenses on account of that under the CWC Retired Employees Medical Attendants Scheme, 1983. Petitioner OP, however, vide its memo dated 15.07.2005 rejected the claim and also debarred the respondent from the benefits under the CWC Retired Employees Medical Scheme. A complaint was, therefore, lodged by the respondent with the District Forum which allowed the same and directed the OPs jointly and severally to pay Rs.1,33,678/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. in addition to Rs.1,000/- as litigation expenses. THE State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner Company against the order of the District Forum. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission dated 15.12.2006, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Corporation.

WE have heard the counsels for the parties. The petitioner Corporation would resist the claim of the respondent on the ground that his son had taken treatment only after 1.12.2002, i.e., after the date of retirement of the respondent and not between 02.11.2002 to 26.11.2002 as claimed by the respondent. According to the petitioner, the complainant deliberately antedated the alleged treatment and claimed exorbitant amount. While dismissing the appeal of the OP Corporation and upholding the order of the District Forum accepting the complaint, the State Commission has made the following observations in the impugned order:- 5. On going through the entire record, we are of the considered opinion that the procedure followed by the opposite parties in the matter of settlement on medical bills submitted by the complainant for treatment of his son shows that the opposite parties failed to follow the due process of law. The entire enquiry was conducted behind the back of the complainant. No notice was ever been given to the complainant. The opposite party also took stand that the son of the complainant is not a dependant un-employee and hence is not entitled to the medical reimbursement. A reading of the 1983 scheme show that ?sons? of the employees if they are not employed are to be treated as dependents of the employee irrespective of the age. The opposite parties have not produced any proof that the son of the complainant was otherwise employed on the date of treatment. Any enquiry conducted without notice to the affected party would be treated as illegal. Considering all these facts into consideration, the District Forum rightly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay the medical reimbursement amount along with costs. The order of the District Forum, in our opinion, does not suffer from any infirmity so as to call for interference in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.

We agree with the view taken by the Foras below. Any adverse view based on the enquiry conducted by the petitioner without notice to the respondent who was affected party would be against principles of natural justice and hence illegal. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any infirmity in the concurrent finding of the Foras below. The revision petition, therefore, stands dismissed. No costs.