State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Senior Medical Officer vs Neelamma, W/O.Shivarudrappa ... on 24 August, 2011
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BANGALORE
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.
DATED THIS THE 24th OF AUGUST 2011
PRESENT
HONBLE JUSTICE MR.K. RAMANNA : PRESIDENT
SRI. A.M. BENNUR : MEMBER
SMT. RAMA ANANTH : MEMBER
Appeal
No.2783/2010
Senior Medical Officer
Chief Manager, Yeshashwini
Division OPPEK
Hospital, Raichur.
(By Shri/Smt
G.Raghavendra Rao)
1. Neelamma,
W/o.Shivarudrappa
Devarmani, Aged
61 years,
Karadigi Taluk,
Gangavathi,
Koppal.
2. Deputy Registrar
Assistant
Registrar of Co-operative
Society,
Yashswini Session, Raichur.
3. Assistant
registrar of Co-operative
Society,
Yashaswini Officer, Raichur.
4. Manager, Family
Health Plan Ltd.,
No.45,
Basement, Millers Road,
Vasanthnagar, Bangalore.
(Shri/Smt. M.C. Palanetrappa for R-2 & 3, G.I.
Gachchinamath for R-4)
.Appellant
Opposite Party No.1 before the DF
-Versus-
.Respondents
R-1 is Complainant R-2 to 4 are OP 2 to 4 before
the DF
O R D E R
SRI. A.M. BENNUR, MEMBER This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the C.P Act of 1986 by the OP 1 in Complaint No.83/2009 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Koppal being aggrieved by the order dated 18-05-2010.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
2. The husband of the complainant Shivarudrappa was a beneficiary under Yashaswini Arogya Scheme floated by the OPs that too for the relevant period 2007-08. He did obtain the membership card and identity card and got it renewed through the Registrar, Koppal. The said Shivarudrappa was unwell. He has taken treatment at Opek Hospital, Raichur that is OP 1 and spent nearly Rs.35,000/-. As he was a card holder, he is entitled for the benefit of reimbursement by the OPs 2 to 4.
But they failed to oblige the same.
Complainant was forced to pay the said medical bills. Ultimately her husband died in the hospital itself. Then she made claim to OP. When her claim was rejected she felt deficiency in service. Accordingly, filed the complaint.
3. It appears though OP 1 appeared before the DF failed to file the version so also other OPs.
4. Then after recording the evidence of the complainant, DF was pleased to allow the said complaint vide its order dated 18-05-2010. Being aggrieved by the same, now the OP 1 has come up with this appeal on the following grounds:
That the DF has failed to note that, it has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. OPs are residing within the jurisdiction of DF, Raichur, but whereas the complaint is filed before the Koppal DF. This material fact is lost sight by the DF. Even the final order passed by the DF does not give any meaning, it is vague and un-executable. The relief granted is also very vague. Actually it is the liability of OP 2 to 4 to pay the said medical bills if at all complainant establishes her case. Admittedly, OP 1 is not the hospital recognized under the said scheme. All these facts are ignored by the DF.
Merely because OPs failed to file version is no ground to allow the said complaint. OP has got substantial defence to put-forth. If the said order is not set aside and the matter is not remitted back to the DF concerned, it is the appellant who will be put to greater hardship and prejudice. Among these grounds, appellant prayed for allowing the appeal.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this appeal are as under:
1.
Whether the impugned order under appeal is unjust and improper?
2. If so, whether it calls for the interference from this commission?
3. To what order?
7. We have gone through the complaint averments, the evidence, the impugned order under appeal, the grounds urged in the appeal memo and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the foregoing paragraphs, our findings on Point No.1 & 2 affirmative and Point No.3 as per final order.
REASONS
8. As could be seen from the contents of the complaint, averments made therein, complainant is a resident of Koppal, but whereas the OPs against whom the allegation of deficiency in service is made mainly OP 1 and 2 are the residents of Raichur. They are not having any branch office at Koppal nor there is any part of cause of action accrued to the complainant to file complaint at Koppal. As per Section 11 of the C.P. Act, complaint is to be filed where the OPs resides or carries on the business or at least a part of cause of action accrued to the complainant. On the face of it, it is not so.
9. On the perusal of the impugned order, sympathetically the DF has entertained the said complaint only on the ground that the complainant being a widower, she is not in a position to go to Raichur, file the complaint and contest the matter, that cannot be a ground. Intention of legislature in enacting the C.P Act is otherwise. So we find there is a substance in the contention of the appellant. In addition to that, when we go through the final order, it is rather vague. How much amount OP 1 is directed to pay is not known. As contended by the OP 1, it is not the hospital which is dealing with the patients, coming under the scheme or benefit of Yashswini Arogya Scheme.
When that is so, no such liability lies for the OP 2 and others to reimburse the said expenses.
10. Any how without expressing our views on the merits and demerits of the case, we find that the DF, Koppal has to decide first whether it has got the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and whether OP 1 hospital comes under the list of hospitals covered under the scheme, then decide the deficiency in service. Merely because OPs have not filed version is no ground to accept the say of the complainant as a gospel truth. When OPs have specifically contended that, complainant is not entitled for the benefit under the scheme natural justice requires that an opportunity should be given to the OP to put-forth their substantial defence if any.
11. For these reasons, we are of the view that the appellant/OP 1 is able to show before this Commission that, the impugned order is erroneous, suffers from legal infirmity, unsustainable in law and it suffers from error apparent on the face of record requiring our interference. We find there is some kind of illegality or irregularity committed by the DF in allowing the said complaint.
As already observed by us in the above said paras, in the interest of justice, it is a fit case wherein it deserves to be tried on merit after affording reasonable opportunity to both the litigating parties. The inconvenience if any faced by the complainant can be compensated by awarding some nominal cost. It is a fit case to be remitted back to the DF for fresh trial. With these reasons, we answer Point No.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Appeal is allowed.
The impugned order under appeal passed by the DF, Koppal in Complaint No. 83/2009 dated 18-05-2010 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the DF, Koppal for denovo trial by giving liberty to OPs to substantiate their defence by filing version and evidence if any.
DF Koppal is hereby directed to dispose off the case afresh on merit in view of the observation made in the body of this order.
The inconvenience suffered by the complainant/respondent No.1 deserves to be compensated. Accordingly, appellant is directed to pay a cost of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant/respondent No.1. The said amount be paid before the DF and both the parties are directed to appear before the DF, Koppal on 23-09-2011 and seek further instructions.
The deposit if any made by the appellant before this Commission be transmitted to the DF concerned, for needful.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER rhr*