The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Consumer Protection Act and the Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1970 in the context of medical reimbursement for government employees.

ORDER

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member -The present Revision Petition has been filed before this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 6.2.2013 in Appeal No. 453 of 2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, 'state Commission'). The State Commission dismissed the Appeal. The Appeal was filed against the orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short, District Forum ) in Complaint No. 2012/2011, whereby the complaint was allowed.

2. The complainant, Champa Lal Sharma, is an Office Assistant in the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Ajmer, (in short RSRTC), the OP. Since, September 2009, he was diagnosed as a case of Multiple Myeloma, took initial treatment at Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital, Ajmer. Thereafter, took further treatment at a private hospital called Mahaveer Cancer Centre, Jaipur, till 16.10.2010, spent about Rs. 2,06,396.24. He requested OP for reimbursement of total medical treatment claim, but it was denied by OP. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service by the OP, and prayed for total medical reimbursement amount, with interest for mental agony and the litigation charges.

3. The District Forum allowed the complaint and awarded Rs. 1,75,524, along with interest @ 9% p.a. and Rs. 1,500 for expenses. Meanwhile, under protest, the OP made payment of Rs. 1,75,524 to the complainant. Subsequent appeal filed by the OP before State Commission, was dismissed.

4. Aggrieved by the order of State Commission, the OP/Petitioner filed this revision.

5. We have heard the Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the evidence on the file. First point of argument was, on non-speaking order of the State Commission, for which he cited two authorities of Hon'ble Supreme Court, H. Siddiqui v. A Ramalingam, (2011) 4 SCC 240, B.V. Nagesh v. H. Sreenivasa Murthy, (2010) 13 SCC 530. The Counsel argued that, the complainant took treatment in the private hospital which was not included in the list of hospitals authorized for medical reimbursement rules, therefore, such reimbursement was not allowed by RSRTC. The complainant took treatment without administrative approval, for cancer disease from Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, Jaipur, hence he was not entitled for reimbursement. He has put reliance upon, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Mahesh Kumar Sharma, (2011) 4 SCC 257. The Counsel advanced his further argument, that the complainant was not a consumer as per definition. Complainant was an employee of the RSRTC, it was an employer and employee relationship, it's a "Contract of Service"; hence the Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain such disputes. The government servant does not fall under the definition of a "consumer" as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. The appropriate forum, for redressal of any of his grievance, may be the State Administrative Tribunal, if any, or the civil Court, but certainly not a forum under the C.P. Act.

6. The learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that, the complainant took his treatment as an emergency at Bhagwan Mahavir Cancer Hospital, Jaipur. It was for a life saving measure, to avoid adverse effect and dire consequences.

7. We have perused the documents on file, the rules pertaining to medical reimbursement. It appears that the OP denied the reimbursement on the basis that the complainant took his treatment at hospital which is not authorized according to Rajasthan Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1970 and the administrative approval was not taken by him to take treatment at Bhagwan Mahavir Cancer Hospital.

8. Thus, in our opinion, OP denied the claim on absolute technical ground. The complainant has served the State Government for his whole life, therefore, the RSRTC, the OP should not show such an apathetic approach towards human life. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Ape