C.H.KUNHIRAMAN Vs. GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the complainant and respondents are the opposite parties in CC.115/08 on the file of CDRF, Kozhikkode. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party/Southern Railway in not granting the medical reimbursement facility claimed by the complainant. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. They contended that the complaint itself is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer coming within the ambit of the consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

(2.) Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and a witness on his side was examined as PW2, the doctor who treated the complainant?s wife. Exts.A1 to A7 documents were also marked on the side of the complainant. From the side of the opposite party/Railway B1 letter dated:31/1/2007 was marked. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated:20th October 2010 dismissing the complaint on the ground that the complainant is not entitled to get the amount reimbursed as the treatment was not an emergent one and the treatment was undergone in the PrivateHospital. Hence the present appeal by the complainant therein.

(3.) We heard both sides. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He argued for the position that the treatment was an emergent one and so the complainant approached the Private hospital for the emergent treatment of his wife. He also relied on the testimony of PW2 and submitted that the Forum below failed to appreciate the evidence on record especially, the evidence of PW2 doctor who treated the complainant?s wife. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties submitted that the appellant/complainant is not a consumer and the complaint in CC.115/08 was not maintainable before the Forum below. It is further submitted that the Forum below did not consider the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant is not a consumer. Thus, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.