E-Paper
Chandigarh | Denying membership costs principal secy health, CGHS 25k
The complainant, Sanjiv Dutt Sharma of New Chandigarh, who worked with the Railway Claim Tribunal as judicial member from 2015 to 2020, said he had approached the parties concerned for becoming a member of the Central Government Health Services (CGHS). He said he was asked to deposit the half of his basic pay to become a member.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has penalised principal secretary, health and family welfare, and the central government health scheme through the additional director for not issuing membership to a judicial member of the Railway Claim Tribunal.
The complainant, Sanjiv Dutt Sharma of New Chandigarh, who worked with the Railway Claim Tribunal as judicial member from 2015 to 2020, said he had approached the parties concerned for becoming a member of the Central Government Health Services (CGHS). He said he was asked to deposit the half of his basic pay to become a member.
Dutt alleged that he had to deposit ₹1.20 lakh as pensioners’ contribution to the CGHS card, which was ₹8,000 in excess, as 50% of the complainant’s basic pay amounts to ₹1.12 lakh. After submitting the amount, Sharma approached CGHS numerous times, but he claimed that they would put off the matter on one pretext or the other. He said that the aforementioned acts amounted to deficiency of service and unfair trade practices.
However, CGHS officials pleaded that per a clarification received from the directorate general of CGHS, dated December 16, 2020, CGHS facilities cannot be extended to retired employees of the Railway Claim Tribunal.
The officials said the complainant had been advised to submit his bank details or a cancelled cheque for refunding his contribution. They also requested the consumer forum to dismiss the complaint.
After hearing both sides, the tribunal directed principal secretary, health and family welfare, and the CGHS to issue the medical card to Sharma and refund ₹8,000. It also directed them to pay ₹10,000 as compensation for deficiency in services and unfair trade practice and pay ₹7,000 as litigation expenses.
