Senior State Medical Commissioner vs RAJINDER SINGH

THIS order shall decide two revision petitions which are between the same opposite parties but the complainants are different. Both the complaints entail similar facts and law point and would be decided in a single judgment.

RAJINDER Singh, the complainant has filed a complaint against the OPs on the allegation that he was working in M/s. GSM Surgicals Ltd., 441, Industrial Area, Phase -9, Mohali, Punjab, and his employer deposited ESI contribution, i.e., Employee''s contribution @ 1.75% and the Employer''s contribution @ 4.75% of his salary.

LIKEWISE , the other complainant, in the second case, was working in M/s. Intellinet Global Services ltd., Phase -VIII, Industrial Area, Mohali, Punjab and her employer deposited the ESI contribution like the previous one. The complainant, Sh.Rajinder Singh was admitted in ESI Hospital, Phase VII, Mohali, on 09.01.2013 and paid a bill in the sum of 12,500/ -. After completing all the formalities, the bill was submitted in ESI on 11.02.2013. However, the bill could not be passed and therefore, he filed a complaint before the District Forum with the prayer that the OPs be directed to clear the bill along with interest and pay Rs.10,000/ - on account of harassment and Rs.5,000/ - as litigation expenses.

SMT . Savita, is the other complainant, in the second case. Her father met with an accident, on 04.09.2012 and was admitted at Cheema Hospital, Phase -IV, Mohali, She paid the bill in the sum of Rs.32,106/ - and the same was not paid, therefore, she also filed a complaint with the prayer that OPs be directed to clear the bill along with interest and also to pay Rs.15,000/ - on account of harassment and Rs.10,000/ - as litigation expenses.

BOTH the OPs, i.e., State Medical Officer, ESIC Hospital and Social Security Officer, ESIC Hospital, contested this case. The main objection set up by them is that Director (Health Services) is a necessary party, who has not been arrayed as one of the parties in this case. In his absence, it is not possible to take action. The cheque is to be issued by State Medical Officer. The bill is to be submitted to the concerned Hospital through the Director (Health Services) who, after passing, has to pass the same, onward. The State Medical Commissioner, ESIC, after receipt of sanction order has to issue the cheque. They contended that in his (Director, Health Services) absence, the case is not maintainable.

BOTH the fora below have allowed both the complaints, partly. Before us, it was stated that both the orders have been complied with. Counsel for the petitioner did not pick up a conflict with that. However, it is a pity that both the petitioners could not get the bill amount, for a period of about one year three months. The people are exasperated of such like senseless delay.

DIRECTOR (Health Services) is a necessary party in this case. In future, if Director (Health Services) is not made a party, the petitioners/ OPs should raise an objection immediately and the District Forum must make Director (Health Services) a party in that case. All the powers lie with the Director (Health Services). It is the duty of the Director (Health Services) to see to that no such like bills are pending for months'' and years'' together. Such like bills should be passed or rejected, within one week from their receipt. In such circumstances, the District Forum must make the Director (Health Services) immediately, a party.

THE bizarre conduct of Social Security Officer (SSO) is also difficult to fathom. We have called the SSO, Sh. Sanjeev Kumar. His attention was invited towards the duties and responsibilities of SSOs. As per 8 -points already detailed by the State Commission and particularly, point No.7, he must find out ways to expedite the matter. The above said SSO stated that no complaint was made to him. This is not a good defence. Whether a complaint is made or not, it is the bounden duty of the SSO to find out that there was no bill pending. He should have made a request to Director (Health Services) to expedite the matter. He is advised to be careful in future.

AS both the revision petitions have become infructuous and the OPs did not pick up a conflict with the matter, therefore, we dismiss the same as having become infructuous. The dispute between the Director (Health Services) and the OPs is not a consumer dispute. If necessary, they can seek relief from any other appropriate forum.