First Appeal No. 1629 of 2014. Case: Senior State Medical Commissioner, ESIC and Ors. Vs Rajinder Singh and Ors.. Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 1629 of 2014
CounselFor Appellant: Ravi Inder Singh, Advocate
JudgesGurcharan Singh Saran, (Presiding Member (J)) and Jasbir Singh Gill, Member
IssueEmployees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Section 58(1)
CitationII (2015) CPJ 13 (Punj.)
Judgement DateJanuary 07, 2015
CourtPunjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


Gurcharan Singh Saran, (Presiding Member (J))

  1. The appellants/opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred as "OP Nos. 2 and 3") have filed the present appeal against the order dated 29.8.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar (Mohali) (hereinafter referred as "the District Forum") in consumer complaint No. 142 dated 4.3.2014 vide which the complaint filed by respondent No. 1/complainant (hereinafter referred as 'the complainant') was allowed with a direction to OP Nos. 2 and 3 to pay lump sum compensation of Rs. 15,000 for harassment and costs of litigation on account of delay in passing her reimbursement bill. Whereas no liability was fixed against OP No. 1. The complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') against the opposite parties on the allegations that he is working in M/s. GSM Surgicals Ltd., 441, Indl. Area, Phase 9, Mohali with insurance No. 1207330126 and his Employer was deposited ESI contribution i.e. Employees' contribution @ 1.75% and Employer's contribution @ 4.75% of his salary. Complainant was admitted in ESI Hospital, Phase VII, Mohali on 9.1.2013 and paid bill of Rs. 12,500. After completing all the formalities, the bill was submitted in ESI on 11.2.2013. He has been regularly visiting ESI Hospital so many times but his bill has not cleared, which amounts to deficiency in services. Hence, the complaint with a direction to the OPs to clear a bill along with interest and also pay Rs. 10,000 on account of harassment and Rs. 5,000 as litigation expenses.

  2. The complaint was contested by the OPs. OP No. 1 in its written statement has been stated that the bill of Rs. 11,500 were paid to the complainant on 3.4.2014.

  3. Whereas OP Nos. 2 and 3 in their written statement took the preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable for nonjoinder of necessary parties as DHS has not been impleaded as a party. The bill is to be submitted through the concerned hospital to the Director Health Services, who after processing is to pass the sanction order and then the cheque was to be issued by the State Medical Commissioner, ESIC. In case there was delay in the office of DHS then these OPs were not responsible. Hence, the complaint was not maintainable. Same averments were reiterated on merits and ultimately, it was submitted that the complaint is without merit and it be dismissed.

  4. The parties were allowed by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT