Decided on April 13,2021

Dr. Raju Singh Respondents


DINESH SINGH, MEMBER, J. - (1.) This Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', challenging the Order dated 23.03.2016 in C. C. No. 148 of 2009 passed by The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'. The Appellant, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), was the Opposite Party before the State Commission, and is hereinafter being referred to as the 'AIIMS'. The Respondent, Dr. Raju Singh, was the Complainant before the State Commission, and is hereinafter being referred to as the 'Complainant'.
(2.) Mr. Bharat Swaroop Sharma, learned Counsel for the Complainant and the Complainant in person were heard. The material on record, including inter alia the impugned Order dated 23.03.2016 of the State Commission and the Memorandum of Appeal, was perused. Mr. Sonu Pandey, advocate was present for the AIIMS as proxy Counsel. The learned Counsel for AIIMS was not present. Learned proxy Counsel did not argue.
(3.) Brief facts, shorn of unnecessary rhetoric, are that the Complainant is a doctor working as a permanent employee of AIIMS and is a beneficiary of the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS). He was suffering from urological ailments for the last 10 years. He was investigated and was being treated in the AIIMS. A biopsy was conducted on 26.06.2007. A provisional date was given for an operation in the first week of August 2007 in AIIMS. The Complainant went on a private visit to U.S.A. on 10.07.2007 with the permission of Director AIIMS. He was to resume his duties on 01.08.2007. He overstayed in the U.S. till 26.08.2007 without intimation to or prior approval of the Director AIIMS. During the period of overstay, which, as of then, was unauthorized, he undertook investigations and a urological surgery on 07.08.2007. He resumed his duties in AIIMS on 27.08.2007. He preferred medical bills amounting to US $ 40,2018.93 relating to the treatment and operation undertaken in the U.S. for reimbursement under the CGHS. The matter was examined by the Standing Committee of AIIMS. It was referred to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The Ministry, vide its letter of 24.08.20210, cited the rules applicable, and intimated that treatment abroad, though available under the CGHS, did not apply to government servants who were on leave or deputation abroad. The AIIMS accordingly rejected his claim. Separately, subsequent to his unauthorized overstay abroad, and subsequent to his rejoining duties after his overstay, the period of overstay was regularized. ;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.