ARUN KUMAR BRAHM Vs. NOKIA INDIA PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum where the respondent filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners by not reimbursing the total amount of expenditure incurred relating to the ailment of his wife.

(2.) Undisputed facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant is a retired Government servant and is a beneficiary of the Rajasthan Pensioners Medical Concession Scheme, 1981. Some time in May, 1999, his wife faced some neurological disorder wherein she was taken to some local Government hospital in Ajmer, from where she was referred to Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as JLN Hospital for short) who in turn referred the patient to SMS Hospital, Jaipur, wherein she was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of Neurology Department. At SMS Hospital, Jaipur, she was operated upon for the first time on 31.5.1999 and, thereafter on 12.6.1999 and unfortunately she died on 9.9.1999. During the course of the above treatment, the respondent incurred an expenditure of Rs. 76,141.68 on purchase of medicines and when the claim was preferred in this regard with the petitioners, it was admitted only for a sum of Rs. 45,286.25 and the balance amount was disallowed on the ground that the medicines for the remainder of the value were purchased by the respondent from open market without getting 'Non-availability Certificate' (NAC) from the concerned doctors and also from the authorised medical shops and without getting the relevant entries in the Patient's Diary, which is violation of Rule 4 of the Rajasthan Pensioners Medical Concession Scheme, 1981. It is in these circumstances that a complaint was filed before the District Forum who, after hearing the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioners to pay, in all, an amount of Rs. 76,141.68 with interest at the rate of 12% from 30.12.2000 till the date of payment along with cost of Rs. 1000.

(3.) Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, who after due consideration and hearing both the parties, dismissed the appeal. Hence, this Revision Petition before us.