Jagdish Singh Chauhan vs Addl. Director

THIS revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/complainant against the impugned order dated 19.4.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 2011/480 - Jagdish Singh Chauhan Vs. Addl. Director (North Zone), CGHS by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that petitioner/complainant is a retired whole life pensioner CGHS Card holder bearing No. P-80205. Petitioner contributed Rs.18,000/- towards the scheme, which is a welfare scheme to retired government employees. Petitioner in emergent circumstances was treated in Ganga Ram Hospital and paid a sum of Rs.3,03,209. Again he was treated in Ayushman Hospital, Dwarka and paid Rs.21,933/-. Petitioner submitted documents for reimbursement, but OP/respondent reimbursed Rs. 2,85,385/- and Rs.11,503/-, respectively against aforesaid claims. Petitioner filed complaint before learned District Forum for reimbursement of balance amount. OP contested complaint. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties held that complaint is not maintainable, as complainant is not a consumer and also dismissed complaint on merits. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed in limine vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard the petitioner in person and learned Counsel for the respondent and perused record.

PETITIONER submitted that petitioner falls within the purview of consumer and learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal on the ground that petitioner does not fall within the purview of consumer; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter be remanded to learned State Commission for disposal on merits. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

THE sole question to be decided in this revision petition is whether; petitioner falls within the purview of consumer or not. Learned District Forum held that complainant/petitioner is not a consumer; hence, complaint is not maintainable. Though, District Forum dismissed complaint on merits also, but learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed appeal in limine only on the ground that complainant is not a consumer. District Forum placed reliance on (2008) 5 SCC 328 State of Karnataka Vs. R. Vevekananda Swami and learned State Commission also cited this citation in impugned order, but this citation is not on this legal issue whether; complainant falls within the purview of consumer or not. On the other hand, petitioner placed reliance on IV (2005) CPJ 197 (NC) - Jagdish Kumar Bajpai Vs. Union of India in which it was held that retired employee joining CGHS, a welfare scheme, falls within the purview of consumer and on this ground matter was remanded for adjudication on merits. This judgment was delivered by Six Member Bench of this Commission. Thus, it becomes clear that petitioner being a retired Government employee, who has contributed towards CGHS Scheme, falls within purview of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and learned District Forum has committed error in holding that complainant does not fall within the purview of consumer and learned State Commission committed error in dismissing appeal in limine. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 19.4.2012 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 2011/480 - Jagdish Singh Chauhan Vs. Addl. Director (North Zone) CGHS is set aside and matter is remanded to learned State Commission to decide appeal on merits treating petitioner as consumer under C.P. Act.

PARTIES are directed to appear before the State Commission on 30th May, 2013.