REGIONAL DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION vs T I Ulahannan

THIS Revision Petition has been filed by the Regional Director, Employees'' State Insurance Corporation who was opposite party No. 3 in the complaint filed by the present respondent No. 1, T.I. Ulahannan before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam. Other opposite parties in the complaint were the Medical Officer, Employees State Insurance Dispensary, Karamana and the Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Trichur respectively. By the impugned order the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the 3rd opposite party against the order of the District Forum and confirmed the order of the District Forum directing the 3rd opposite party to pay Rs.

,000/ - TO the complainant TOwards compensation for the losses incurred by him due TO the negligence of the 2nd opposite party and the 3rd opposite party. The District Forum has also directed that the 3rd opposite party should realise this amount from the concerned employee who is responsible for the delay caused in issuing the Medical Record Envelope. 2. The facts as gathered from the record are that the complainant is an employee working under M/s. Marikar (MoTOrs) Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram and is eligible for the services of ESI Department as he is a member of the ESI Scheme. The premium was deducted from the salary of the complainant by the employer and regularly remitted TO the ESI Department. Earlier, the complainant was working in the Trivandrum Office and he was getting services of the ESI Department. He was transferred TO Kottayam and the 1st opposite party accorded his sanction for the transfer of the Medical Record Envelope. According TO the complainant the relevant papers did not reach Kottayam as they were not despatched by the 2nd opposite party and he could not avail the ESI facility since 1988 which resulted in heavy expenses TO him TOwards medical treatment. He further alleged that even though facility was not provided by the ESI Department, premiums were deducted from his salary and paid TO the Department regularly. In those circumstances, the complainant filed the complaint for compensation. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties in their counter averred that the petitioner is not a Consumer u/Sec. 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and the opposite parties were not rendering any service for consideration and it was the Rd opposite party who was collecting the contribution from the employees. 3. The 3Rd opposite party in the counter stated that the authority TO provide medical facility for the insured persons and their family members in the State is the State Government and the medical facilities under the ESI Scheme are administered by the 1st opposite party and the transfer of M.R.E. was TO be effected by the 2nd opposite party. It is further stated that if any dispute arises on any matter, such dispute shall be decided by the Employees Insurance Court.

THE District Forum held that the Consumer Protection Act is a later Act which gives the consumer remedies for the losses incurred and damages suffered due to the deficiency in service by any one whose services were hired by the consumer for a consideration. The District Forum further held that the complainant was a consumer. The District Forum also found that the 2nd opposite party committed deficiency in not sending the Medical Report Envelope to Kottayam and it was the reason for refusing the medical facility to the complainant at Kottayam and therefore 2nd opposite party''s service suffered from deficiency. The 3rd opposite party was made liable to pay compensation to the petitioner due to the negligence of the 2nd opposite party. Feeling aggrieved the 3rd opposite party filed appeal before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram.

BEFORE the State Commission the only point raised by the Counsel for the appellant was that 2nd opposite party having been found guilty of deficiency in service in not transferring relevant records to Kottayam, there was no justification in fastening liabilities on the 3rd opposite party. The State Commission held that the 3rd opposite party is liable to render services to the complainant as it was collecting the premium from the salary of the complainant. Thus it is the service of the 3rd opposite party that is hired by the complainant for rendering the service. The same finding had been recorded in the order of the District Forum. We have gone through the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission and perused the records. We are of the opinion that the State Commission has not exceeded its jurisdiction while confirming the order of the District Forum nor is its order vitiated by any illegality or material irregularity. It is well settled that a Court or Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide a question of fact or law rightly or wrongly. The order cannot be upset in revision unless it is shown that the Court or Tribunal has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Even it is held that there is any mistake in the order of the State Commission it cannot be said that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In view of the above observations, we do not find any merit in the Revision Petition and dismiss the same with no order as to costs. Revision dismissed.