South Eastern Coalfields Limited vs Basant Kumar Chhajed

Sudip Ahluwalia, Member

This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Opposite Party against the Respondent / Complainant challenging the impugned Order dated 27.09.2018 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur, in Appeal bearing No. FA/2018/581.  Vide such Order, the State Commission had dismissed the Appeal while upholding the Order dated 08.02.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, in Case No. CC/172/2017.

The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant sent an application along with a Draft of Rs.20,000/- to the Opposite Party after retirement on 31.05.1996 for getting the benefits under Medi-claim on 17.04.2013. The Opposite Party accepted the said application and sent a Card from 06.05.2013 to 05.05.2014 for re-payment of Medi-claim of Complainant and his wife on 18.05.2013. Consequently, the Complainant sent advance intimation on 18.06.2013 to the Opposite Party for getting knee replacement of both the knees of his wife at Greater Kailash Hospital, Indore, which was replied to by the Opposite Party on 07.08.2013 stating that the Greater Kailash Hospital, Indore, is not approved Hospital for Medi-claim Card/Policy. However, after due correspondence, approval letter dated 27.08.2014 was issued, in pursuance of which the Complainant sent a claim of Rs.5,07,230/- with all the documents of Knee replacement of his wife to the Opposite Party on 08.09.2014. But the Opposite Party delivered only a sum of Rs. 65,524/- to the Complainant.  Hence, Complaint bearing No. 172/2017 was filed alleging deficiency in services by the Opposite Party, and seeking payment of Rs.5,07,230/- along with other ancillary reliefs.

The Ld. District Forum vide its Order dated 08.02.2018 proceeded Ex-parte against the Opposite Party as it had failed to appear despite service of notice and hence, allowed the Complaint as it remained unchallenged and directed the Opposite Party to pay the balance amount after deducting Rs.65,524/- from the Medi-claim amount of Rs.5,07,230/-, Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation costs. It is also noted by the Ld. District Forum in its Order that the Complainant had filed a complaint before Mumbai Forum which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and Appeal against the said Order was also dismissed by the Hon’ble State Commission. Hence, the present Complaint was filed before the Ld. District Forum.

Aggrieved by the above Order, First Appeal bearing No. FA/2018/581 was filed by Appellant/Opposite Party against the Respondent/Complainant before the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur. The Opposite Party contended that it is not bound to pay the claim as claimed by the Complainant as he has got the knee-replacement of both the knees of his wife at Greater Kailash Hospital, Indore. Also, the Complainant did not obtain any approval from the Opposite Party for availing treatment from the said Hospital as the said Hospital is neither contracted by S.E.C.L. nor is a notified Hospital. Hence, it was contended that the Opposite Party is not liable to pay the claim. It was further contended that knee replacement is not treated as medical urgency as per rules of the Company. It was also contended that the Opposite Party was proceeded Ex-parte, although Notice was not served on S.E.C.L as the Complainant had failed to address it to any Officer or concerned department of S.E.C.L.

The Ld. State Commission vide the impugned Order dated 27.09.2018 dismissed the Appeal while upholding the Order of the Ld.  District Forum and observed that the Appeal was barred by limitation by 90 days which cannot be condoned as the Appellant had failed to give any satisfactory explanation for the delay.

Hence, the present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party against the above-mentioned impugned Order of the Ld. State Commission.

In his Written Synopsis, the Respondent/Complainant has drawn attention to relevant Medical Attendance Rules of Contributory Post Retirement of Medicare Scheme for Executives of CIL and its Subsidiaries in Rule 3.2.1 pertaining to “Indoor treatment” for the retired Executives, it has been provided as follows –

“ 3.2.1  Indoor Treatment

a. i) Reimbursement of Medical expenses incurred for indoor treatment will be allowed on actual basis, subject to the condition that the treatment is obtained I Company hospitals, Government hospitals including hospitals under Municipal Corporation and all other PSUs.  Besides, Medical expenses will also be reimbursed for treatment undertaken in hospitals notified by Coal India Ltd. as per actual or CGHS rate whichever is less.

ii)  In case of emergency, like Heart attack, accidents, etc., or due to non-availability of empanelled hospitals in a particular town or city, if any retired executive and/or spouse undertake medical treatment in hospitals/nursing homes other than mentioned above, the reimbursement will be admissible as per prevailing MAR rate.  Such payments will be released on case to case basis on obtaining approval of Dir.(P&IR), CIL or CMDs of the subsidiary companies as the case may be ………..”

It is, therefore, stressed on behalf of the Complainant that according to the aforesaid Rule, only prior information is required to be given to the CMD of the Company, and obtaining any prior approval is not mandatory.

The Ld. State Commission had dismissed the Appeal filed on behalf of the Petitioner as being barred by limitation with the following observations-

“17. We have perused the record of the District Forum.  The District Forum issued notice to the appellant(O.P.) on 30.05.2017 for date of hearing 23.06.2017.  In the order sheet dated it is mentioned that notice was not served to the O.P. and the District Forum directed to again sent the notice for date of hearing 25.07.2017.  In the order sheet dated 25.07.2017, it is mentioned that the complainant had filed document, which is Track Consignment regarding service of notice to the O.P., in which it is mentioned that the notice was served to the O.P. and the case was fixed for 08.08.2017.  in the order sheet, it is mentioned that on previous date of hearing the notice was served on the O.P., but none appeared on behalf of the O.P., therefore, the O.P. is proceeded ex-parte.  The District Forum, passed the impugned order on 08.02.2017.  It appears that the appellant (O.P.) was deliberately absent on the date of hearings even after due service of the notice.  According to the appellant (O.P), it had not received the copy of the impugned order.  In the order sheet dated 08.02.2018, learned District Forum had specifically ordered that the copy of the order be provided to the parties, free of cost and the copy of the impugned order has been sent to the O.P. by Dispatch No. 43/2018.  It appears that the copy of the impugned order was sent to the appellant (O.P.) also.  Therefore, it can safely be presumed that the copy of the impugned order would have been received by the appellant (O.P.).  The appellant (O.P.) was required to file the instant appeal within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the impugned order.  The appellant (O.P.), even after service of notice was intentionally absent on the date of the hearings and no sufficient reason has been mentioned in the application that why the appellant(O.P.) could not appear before the District Forum even after receiving notice.  The appeal is belated by 90 days, and delay has not been properly explained by the appellant (O.P.).  Therefore, in the application filed by the appellant (O.P.) for condonation of delay, no proper reason has been assigned for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal.  The instant appeal has been filed on 08.06.2018 i.e. belatedly by 90 days.  No satisfactory explanation has been given by the appellant (O.P.) as to why it could not file the appeal within prescribed time.

In the instant case, looking to the application filed by the appellant (O.P.) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal and affidavit of Dr. Dilip Sonkusare, filed in support of the said application, it appears that the reasons assigned by the appellant (O.P.) in the said application regarding delay in filing the appeal, are not satisfactory and delay has not been explained properly, therefore, the appeal is barred by limitation by 90 days, which cannot be condoned.”

The submission raised on behalf of the Petitioner to the effect that the notice delivered in its office did not specify the name or designation of the officer to whom it ought to have been delivered, is untenable.  The Petitioner is a large Company and is presumed to have its own machinery to ensure that any notices received are taken care of by the concerned Cell of the organisation.

After hearing the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the parties, and on going through the available material on record, this Commission finds no tangible grounds to interfere with the impugned order. This is so because the Ld. State Commission has rightly taken note of the fact that the Ld. District Forum had recorded that service of the notice in the Consumer Complaint had been effected validly, which was verified from the Track Consignment report placed on record. Further, the Ld. State Commission also noted that the final order of the District Forum had been sent to the Petitioner/Opposite Party under despatch No. 43/2018, and there was no reason to presume that it was not received by the petitioner. Yet, the petitioner claimed that it came to know about the impugned order only from the letter of the Respondent/Complainant on 13/04/2018 and thereafter applied for certified copy of the same which was received on 09/05/2018.

But even from that date, there was a delay of 90 days in filing the appeal, and no tangible grounds to justify the same were made out in para 5 of the application for condonation of delay filed before the Ld. State Commission, and it was merely stated therein –

“5. Note Sheet for departmental section to meet all necessary formalities for appeal and deposit of Rs. 25,000/– was issued by the S.E.C.L. Management. Said amount of Rs. 25,000/– has been deposited in the subordinate court after sanction. It takes time in the S.E.C.L. Management to complete necessary formalities for filing appeal.”

The aforesaid explanation justifying the delay as mentioned in para No. 5 of the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay is ex-facie unconvincing and flimsy. Needless to add, the petitioner is a large Company and is presumed to have its own machinery to ensure that proper and timely steps are taken to safeguard its interests in any legal proceedings. But the same sadly appears to be lacking in the present case. For the same reason, the petitioner’s contention in the earlier para numbers 2 and 3 of the same application, that it did not receive any notice of the original complaint since it was not addressed to any particular officer or the concerned department of the S.E.C.L., Is equally unconvincing and flimsy.

Consequently, this Commission finds no grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned Order of the Ld. State Commission.

The Revision Petition is therefore dismissed. No further orders as to costs.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.