AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE Postal Department of Chhattisgarh State has filed this revision petition against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No. 792 of 2011. The State Commission has allowed the appeal of the Complainant and directed the postal department to consider the application of the appellant/Complainant for giving financial assistance for reimbursement of bills of the appellant upto 50%. In very brief, the facts relate to the case of a non -departmental employee, who had rendered service under a branch post office in Sarguja District from 4.5.1963 to 31.3.2009. He was being paid salary and allowed other facilities by the department. On 25.1.2009, he suffered a heart attack and thereafter underwent treatment at Ambikapur District Hospital, till his retirement on 31.3.2009. He sought refund of the medical expenses but, received no reply from the department. Subsequently, in reply to a legal notice, the department informed him by a letter of 6.4.2011 that his claim could not be considered for payment under the departmental rules, on account of delay of 23 months.
THE postal department admitted that he was a non -departmental Dak Sevak, but asserted that he was not entitled to medical reimbursement from the Government. However, as per the written response of the department before the District Forum, financial assistance from the Voluntary Welfare Fund, on compassionate ground, could be availed, in a case where the claim was submitted with the 90 days of the treatment provided. In his case, the claim was made after a gap of 23 months from the commencement of treatment. Therefore, his claim was not considered nor was his reply sent to him. The District Forum came to a conclusion that the claimant as Gramin Dak Sevak, was a non -departmental employee. But he had given no particulars of his contribution to the Voluntary Welfare Fund. Therefore, he could not be treated as a consumer of the OP.
THE State Commission on its assessment of the evidence on record took a contrary view and held that: 9. The District Forum came to the conclusion that appellant has not contributed in the fund and so was not "consumer" of the respondents. But after going through the rules framed for Gramin Dak Sevak and Minutes of Meeting of the Member of the Board dated 10.5.2006, it is clear that fund has been created for the benefits if the Dak Sevak and other employees by their contribution and amount provided by Government. Persons in permanent employment and Dak Sevak are getting benefit from the Board for reimbursement of the medical bills. Thus, the appellant can safely be treated as ''consumer'', because fund was created for him and like persons only either from the amount, which has been received from the Government of India or from the contribution of some permanent employees and temporary employees. In these circumstances, we find appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the case of the appellant afresh and to decide Mediclaim application of the appellant sympathetically, so that he can also get benefit of financial assistance as has been provided in the Service Rules for Postal Gramin Dak Sevak and similarly placed other employed persons.
WE have carefully considered the records and heard Mr. R.N. Singh on behalf of the revision petitioner. Notices were sent to the respondent/complainant, but he did not appear. However, in response, written arguments of the respondent/complainant have been received on 16.10.2012. On the question of delay in submitting the claim, the State Commission has held that as the treatment was continued, the respondent (OP) were not justified in dismissing it. The main grounds raised in the revision petition are that the respondent/complainant is not a consumer of the department. It is also argued that while remanding the matter back to the petitioner''s for consideration of the claim of the respondent/complainant The State Commission has given a specific finding on the issues involved in the matter, which will oblige the department to allow the claim contrary to the merits of the case.
WE have cited above the relevant parts of the decision of the Fora below on the question whether the complainant was a consumer of the OP or not. The District Forum has apparently gone by the fact that the complainant was not a Government servant but non -departmental employee of the department. The State Commission has examined the matter further, going beyond the question whether the complainant was a regular Government employee or not. The status of the complainant has been examined in the context of the fact that the claim was admittedly admissible under the rules of the Voluntary Welfare Fund. We find ourselves in agreement with the finding that the complainant is a consumer of the department/OP qua the Fund.
AS for the other contention raised by the revision petitioner, we do not accept the perception of the petitioner. What has come from the impugned order is in the nature of specific finding of facts and not a direction to pay. The direction of the State Commission is limited to reconsideration of the claim of the complainant under the rules applicable to the Welfare Fund. Use of the expression "avoiding hyper technical view and adopting a liberal sympathetic view" does not amount to a direction "to allow the claim" as it is. No fault can therefore be found with such a direction. In the result, we find the revision petition to be entirely devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed for want of merit. No order as to costs.