CENTRAL GOVERNMENT HEALTH SCHEME Vs. S S RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Suresh Chandra, MemberSince the subject matter involved in both the revision petitions is same and they have been filed against the common order dated 8.12.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai ("State Commission", for short) in F.A. No. 863 of 2008, these revision petitions have been considered together and are being disposed of as hereunder. Revision Petition No. 2582 of 2009 A complaint in this case was filed by the respondent herein before the District Forum. The complainant is 71 years old Central Government pensioner beneficiary under the CGHS. He was suffering from Hernia during December 2001 and was admitted in Sri Ramchandra Medical College Hospital on 9.1.2002 and discharged on 19.1.2002. He had undergone Hernia operation on 15.1.2002 and spent Rs. 17,894 towards medical charges and for medicines Rs. 3,116. He submitted a bill for reimbursement. The OP organization after a gap of some time issued a cheque for Rs. 2,625 and disallowed a sum of Rs. 12,153. A consumer complaint was, therefore, lodged by the complainant claiming reimbursement of the balance amount and compensation. The OP organization admitted that the complainant is covered under the Contributory Central Government Health Scheme but resisted the complaint. It was submitted that after scrutiny by the committee, a cheque for Rs. 2,625 was issued to the complainant and the remaining amount claimed by the complainant was disallowed since it was not admissible as per rules. It was denied that there was any deficiency in service on their part and hence they were not liable to pay any compensation. On appraisal of the issues and the evidence adduced, the District Forum accepted the complaint and directed the OPs 1 to 3 to jointly and severally reimburse Rs.12,153 and a sum of Rs. 5,000 as compensation and Rs. 1,000 as cost. Aggrieved by this order of the District Forum, the OPs 1 to 3 challenged the same before the State Commission through Appeal No. 863 of 2008. The State Commission vide its impugned order allowed the appeal in part and the order of the District Forum was set aside insofar as the direction to the OPs to reimburse the sum of Rs. 12,153 was concerned, to the complainant. The other directions of the District Forum were upheld. It is against this order of the State Commission that the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 120 days in filing the revision petition. We have perused the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay. The reasons/explanation given by the petitioner in support of the application are reproduced below:

(3.) It is seen from the above that no dates have been mentioned by the petitioner while explaining and justifying the delay. Not only this, the period of delay which is sought to be condoned also does not seem to be known to the petitioner since there is no mention about it in the application. It is clear that the petitioner has filed his application with general and vague explanation in a mechanical and routine manner. It is well-established law that each day's delay beyond the prescribed period of limitation has to be explained satisfactorily by the concerned applicant. In the absence of any dates, we are not at all convinced about the explanation put fourth by the petitioner in support of the condonation application. We are, therefore, not inclined to condone the delay of 120 days.