HARDEV SINGH Vs. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the "Act") is to the order dated 24.04.2017 in First Appeal bearing No. 125/2017 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short "the State Commission"). By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner herein and concurred with the findings of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (Central) ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi (for short "the District Forum"), which has dismissed the Complaint.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the Complainant served with the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) for more than 35 years and retired from its Archini Branch Office on 30.06.1995, as an Executive Engineer. It is averred that later on the said DVB or DESU was bifurcated into several independent units. Second Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as "Pension Trust") was entrusted with the task of providing free medical treatment to its employees and their family members on the analogy of CGHS scheme existing for Central Government employees; that as per Delhi Vidyut Board service/retirement rules, the Complainant and his wife were entitled to avail medical benefits from nearby Government Dispensary for which he had been issued with Registration No. 296; that the nearby Government Dispensary was situated at Janak Puri, New Delhi 110058. It is further averred that the Complainant and his wife were receiving normal medical treatment from the afore-said Government Dispensary situated at Janak Puri, New Delhi. While so, the Complainant was detected to be suffering from the ailment of Prostate Cancer on 05.06.2012. His ailment was of such a critical nature and required exhaustive examination and tests and treatment which was either not available in any of the enlisted/panelled hospital of Delhi Vidyut Board or out of reach of the Complainant. It is pleaded that the Complainant was at an advanced age of 76 years with physical infirmity and was not in a position to go to a far-off Hospital for an Emergency. As he was in need of immediate assistance, he took treatment from Adiva North Point Hospital at Green Park Extension, New Delhi. He was admitted on 12.06.2012 and was examined in detail for high PSA and Prostatomegaly. He was also advised a Biopsy, samples of which were sent to Mumbai and the Complainant paid an amount of Rs. 20,775/- for the testing report. As the empanelled hospitals of Pension Trust were far from his place of residence and further were also not sufficiently equipped with the facilities required for treatment of advanced prostate cancer, the Complainant took the treatment from B.L. Kapoor Multi Specialty Hospital at Pusa Road which is linked to a Metro Station. He paid a number of bills for his treatment at the said Hospital and brought the same to the notice of the Department concerned. The collective amount of those bills comes to Rs. 2,39,374/- and apart from this, the Complainant is regularly spending enormous amounts for taking injections of LUPRIDE DEPOT 11.25 m.g. every three months for saving his life and the cost of one injection is approximately Rs. 11,000/-.

(3.) It is pleaded that the Complainant placed an Application before the Opposite Party on 15.09.2014 for reimbursement in terms of Rules and Guidelines of CGHS. The Complainant further also stated his inability to receive treatment from the panelled hospitals of the Opposite Parties as the same were far away from his place of residence and they were also not sufficiently equipped with the facilities required in such emergency treatment of advanced prostate cancer. However, Opposite Parties vide its reply dated 22.09.2014 informed the Complainant that relaxation of taking treatment from non-panelled Hospitals cannot be granted in view of CGHS Rules and Guidelines. Complainant served Legal Notice dated 21.10.2014 upon Opposite Party whereby Opposite Party was called upon to reimburse an amount of Rs. 2,55,340/-. The notice was duly served as per the speed post report, but there was no reply. Aggrieved, the Complainant filed the Complaint before the District Forum seeking the following reliefs:-