RADHANATH SANTRA Vs. W B S E B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS revision is directed against the order dated 30. 3. 2006 of State Commission, Delhi allowing appeal against the order dated 21. 5. 2004 of a District Forum with direction to the petitioner Bank to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000 to the respondent. District Forum had dismissed the complaint filed by the respondent.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this revision lie in a narrow compass. Respondent/complainant had retired as Assistant General Manager of the petitioner/o. P.-Bank. Petitioner introduced "pnb Retired Officers' Contributory Medical Benefit Scheme" (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) exclusively for its retired officers w. e. f. 1. 1. 2000. Respondent joined the scheme and paid the amount of Rs. 10,000 as contribution. In February 2002, the respondent wrote a letter to the petitioner that he will undergo operation of his 2nd eye. Thereafter, he underwent operation on 25. 4. 2003. In the meantime, it was decided to close the scheme on 27. 3. 2003 being unviable. On bill for the operation of 2nd eye not being paid, the respondent alleging deficiency in service filed complaint seeking certain reliefs which was contested by the petitioner Bank on a number of grounds including that the respondent is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. District Forum dismissed the complaint solely on the ground of respondent not being a 'consumer'. In appeal filed by the respondent the finding returned by the District Forum in regard to respondent not being a consumer was set aside and particularly taking note of the respondent's letter dated 9. 2. 2002 that he has been advised to undergo operation of 2nd eye which was done in April, 2003, amount of Rs. 5,000 was awarded as compensation to the respondent by the State Commission.

(3.) WE have heard Shri Jagdeep Kishore for the petitioner Bank and the respondent.