SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

P.N. Thankappan Nair - Appellant
Versus
Asst. Education Officer - Respondent
Decided On : 01/29/1993
Complaint No. 167 of 1992
.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, ,1986 - Section 2(1)(d) - Delay in taking necessary action for the sanction or the Medical reimbursement• Claim for monetary loss & mental agony Complainant cannot be said to have hired the service for consideration hence not a Consumer - Complainant cannot be adjudicated by Consumer Forum. (Para 5 to 7)

       Result: Complaint dismissed with liberty to complainant to seek remedy before proper authority.

       IMPORTANT POINT

       When the Complainant has not hired any service for consideration he cannot be said to be a consumer.

ORDER

C.G. Sethulekshmi, Member - The case of the complainant is that his son, P.T. Gopakumar who is a student had to undergo a Kidney Transplantation on 19.6.1991 at the Velloor Christian Medical College. His treatment started at the Velloor Christian Medical College from 7.5.1991. The Kidney is donated by his mother Smt. M.P. Padmini who is a teacher of the Government Model D.P. School, Kiliroor, Kottayam. Before the Transplantation operation both the patient and the donor had to under-go various tests. After the operation the treatment continues. For the treatment and Transplantation operation the complainant had spend more than Rs. 3 lakhs.

2. As the wife of the Complainant Smt. M.P. Padmini is a teacher of the Government school she is entitled to get the medical reimbursement. Therefore the necessary records and documents including the essentiality certificate were submitted to the Director of Health Service through the Head Master. For the treatment outside Kerala the sanction was given by the Director of Health Service by order L Dis M 11861/92/DHS dated 6.2.1992. The first claim for the Medical reimbursement was submitted to the Assistant Educational Officer through School and from there the same was forwarded to the Director of Health Service for further action. The admissibility of the claim was scrutinised by the DHS and sent to the AEO, West, kottayam as per letter No. L-Dis- M618123/92/DHS dated 29.2.1992. But till date neither any action is taken nor he was informed about any defects in the claim.

3. The bill amounting to Rs. 38,000/- towards the 2nd claim is also kept in the Asst. Educational Officer's office without taking any action. The complainant and his wife approached the Asst. Educational Officer several times and requested repeatedly to take necessary action on the bill submitted. But the Asst. Educational Officer kept the bill without taking any action on the ground of clarification of certain doubts. The contention of the complainant was that due to this delay on the part of the Asst. Educational Officer in taking necessary actions for the sanction of the bill caused the complainant heavy financial loss. As the Medical reimbursement was not sanctioned in time he had to pay heavy interest on the loan which he had obtained for the treatment of his son. The prayer of the complainant is to pass an order directing the opposite party to compensate the loss caused to him due to the delay in taking necessary actions for the sanction of the bill and to pay Rs. 25,000/- towards the compensation for mental agony.

4. Smt. V.K. Saralamma, the Asst. Educational Officer appeared before us in person and submitted before us that she had assumed the charge of Asst. Educational Officer, West, Kottayam only on 2.6.1992 and that there was no wilfull delay on her part in the sanction of the claim. She also produced before us a calendar of correspondence regarding File No. 216192, the medical reimbursement claim in respect of Smt. M.P. Padmini. P.D. Teacher, Govt. U.P.S. Kiliroor, Kottayam. It was also submitted by her that as per rule 7 A of the Government servants Medical Attendance Rules, prior sanction of the Director of Health Service is required for treatment outside the State, that in the instant case the prior sanction of the Director has not been obtained and so it happened that certain doubts regarding the sanction had to be cleared and it took some time for issuing the sanction after receipt of the verification report of the Director. It was also submitted that the sanction of the claim amounting to Rs. 1,00,518/- admitted by the Director of Health Service was given vide order No. F. 216/92,KDS. dt. 12.8.1992 and that Smt. M.P. Padmini did not accept the amount sanctioned and filed appeal before the Deputy & Director of Education, Kottayam as per her petition dated 17.8.1992, which was disposed as per Lr. No. C222195/92/L dis. dt. 20.1.1992 of the Deputy Director of Education, stating that the Director of Health Serv






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top