Latest Indian Business News

Financial World - Latest Articles

Latest World News

 

 

Bank of Baroda Looses Cases   -  Denial of medical scheme to VRS Optees  - Nagpur District Consumer Disputes Rederessal Forum

 

by

Narendra Khutate n2548k@gmail.com

 

I SUBMIT HEREWITH THE TRANSLATED COPY OF THE ORIGINAL DECISION IN MARATHI FOR BENEFIT OF THE VRS OPTEES OF BANK OF BARODA, WHO WERE DENIED BENEFIT UNDER THE SCHEME BY THE BANK MANAGEMENT.

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, NAGPUR

 

DATE OF COMPLAINT :     23/11/2010

DATE OF JUDGEMENT:  31.12.2001

COMPLAINT NO. 727/2010

 

Complainant             :       Narendra Sitaramji Khutate

 VERSUS

Non Applicants  :               1.  Bank of Baroda,

                                            Through Chairman & Managing Director

                                             Head Office : Suraj Plaza,

                                            Sayajiganj,BARODA

                                          2.  Bank of Baroda, (Through its General Manager (HRM & Marketing)  Having office at Baroda Corporate Center, C-26, G- Block, Bandra Kurla Complex,      MUMBAI - 400061

                                         3.  Bank of Baroda, Through its Deputy General Manager  Having Office at  West High Court Road,    Dharampeth, NAGPUR

 

Advocate for Complainant :              Mr.Jayesh Vora

Advocate for Non Applicants:            Mrs. Jaya Khedkar

 

QORUM:  1. Shri Vijaysimgh Rane         -  President

               2. Shrimati Jayashri Yende      -  Member

               3. Shri Naresh Bansod           -  Member

 

DECISION OF THE FORUM : As per order  dated 31/12/2011

of Shri Naresh Bansod – MEMBER

ORDER

(Passed on 31/12/2011)

 

1.      The complainant filed his complaint against Opposite Party No. 1 to 3 on 23/11/2010 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act demanding that there is deficiency in the service since the complainant and his wife has not been extended the medical benefits under the Contributory Medical Aid Scheme – 2000 and after accepting contribution of ` 8070 benefits under the Contributory Medical Aid Scheme for Retired Scheme be provided to him and his wife and for physical, mental and economic loss caused to him ` 500000 and ` 25000 towards cost of this complaint.

 Complaint of the complainant in brief is as under ……..

 

2. The  complainant was under employment with the opposite party from 22/03/1971 and being eligible was retired on 31/03/3001 under the Bank Of Baroda Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme-2001 by the Opposite Party.

 3.  As per the Complainant in the Circular dated 14/12/2001 nowhere it was mentioned that employees opting for Bank Of Baroda Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme-2001 shall not be entitled to the Contributory Medical Assistance Scheme For Retired Employees and therefore complainant after fulfilling the criteria under Bank Of Baroda Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme-2001 was relieved on 31/03/2001 after accepting his application. In 2000 personal division of opposite party No.1 vide circular No. HO:BR:92/317 dated 9.11.2000  informed that “We are pleased to advise that the Board of Directors of our Bank has in its meeting held on 07/08/2000 approved introduction of the ‘Bank Of Baroda Contributory Medical Assistance Scheme for Retired Employees’ to all employees who have retired and who shall retire from Bank’s service in future. The Scheme shall be effective from  1st September 2000. A copy of the said scheme is enclosed at Annexure – 1.  The Scheme envisages reimbursement of Medical Expenses on account of domiciliary treatment and hospitalization for retired employees  who become member of the scheme and their spouse’.

 

4.      According to Complainant to acquire the membership of the said scheme the scheme contemplated one time lump sum own contribution towards membership fees i.e. equal to 50% of the basic salary last drawn + special pay (if applicable). Also the scheme was applicable to all the employees already retired and would be retiring in future. The complainant being in service of the Bank prior to  retirement was entitled to the  medical facilities as applicable to the retired employees and till retirement was not eligible to become the member under the ‘Bank Of Baroda Contributory Medical Assistance Scheme for Retired Employees’ Therefore after retirement as per scheme of 2000 complainant approached opposite  party No.3 requesting to enroll as member under the contributory medical aid scheme  for retired employees. But every time membership to the complainant was refused stating that employees retired under the scheme of 2001 are not covered under the scheme and again refused to accept the membership fees.

 

5.      In reply to the complainant opposite party vide letter dated 14/09/2001 communicated as under. ‘At present, employees who sought voluntary retirement under BOBEVRS-2001 are not eligible for becoming mrmber under the captioned scheme.’  Even then complainant continually made correspondence.  Opposite party  vide letter dated 31.01.2002 informed that the benefit under the scheme are not extended to the employees retired under the  Bank Of Baroda Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme-2001.

 

6.      Opposite party in the year 2005 issued ‘Red Hearing Prospectus’ for the general public in that behalf stated that the Bank was sure about the status of the Voluntary Retired employees. As per complainant in the SLP 22704/2005 Hon. Supreme Court vide CA 1942/2009 Bank of  India  vs K.Mohandas passed an order on 27/03/2009.  That vide the said judgement Hon’ble Apex Court held voluntarily retired employees as regular pensioners under Pension Regulation 29. After the above judgement of the Apex Court opposite party was requested to extend the benefits of the ‘Bank Of Baroda Contributory Medical Assistance Scheme for Retired Employees’ and thereafter complainant continually followed up with the  opposite party no.1 to3 even then opposite party turned down the request and again mentioning in the same letter ‘We also observe that you have been repeatedly sending representations to our Chairman and Managing Director on the above issue. ‘Kindly note that we woulg not be able to entertain any further request in this regards in future.’

 7.      Complainant also sought information under Right To Information as per a & b below

a)      Dates of meeting of the Staff Welfare Committee and the minutes of the meeting if held.

b)      Whether the extension of ‘Bank Of Baroda Contributory Medical Assistance Scheme for Retired Employees’ is a welfare measure by the Bank.

 

8.      The Complainant again states that opposite parties have made provisions of huge amounts in the profit and loss account each year for staff welfare and the ‘Contributory Medical Assistance Scheme for Retired Employees’ floated by the opposite parties is a welfare measure. This is duly accepted by the opposite parties in its reply dated 17/08/2010 under Right to Information. The complainant further states that benefits of scheme are made available to all other retirees except retirees under Bank of Baroda Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme-2001 despite the Apex Court holding the said employees on par with other regular retirees as per provisions of the Sec.29 of the bank’s pension rules. As per complainant it is only the Board of Directors of the opposite parties who are entitled and empowered to make a decision as regards exclusion of the retirees of BOBEVRS-2001. Board of Directors of the opposite parties till date have not taken decision on exclusion of retirees under Bank of Baroda  Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme-2001 from ‘Contributory Medical Assistance Scheme for Retired Employees’. Further  decision taken by Welfare Fund Managing Committee to exclude retirees under Bank of Baroda Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme-2001 is without any authority.  To deprive the complainant from the scheme is deficiency in service by the opposite parties and the complainant and his wife could not avail the benefits under the scheme and therefore requested for compensation in this regards.

 9.      The complainant states that provisions of ‘Contributory Medical Assistance Scheme for Retired Employees’ forms the part of service conditions and therefore present dispute is a consumer dispute. As per complainant he was eligible to become member of the scheme by contributing `.8070 and therefore his contribution should not be increased more than this.  

10.     As per complainant the cause of action continues since his retirement as on 31/03/2001 he has made continuous correspondence and Apex Court order dated 27/03/2009 and he filed this complaint within limitation and office of the Opposite party No.3 is at Nagpur and the complainant retired from there only therefore the complaint is within the jurisdiction of this court.  

11.     The complainant filed along with the complaint the Xerox copies of list of Documents No. 1 to 14 and are on page No. 25 to 54.

 12.     The complainant also filed copy of the judgement of National Commission case  Jagdish Kumar Bajpai vs Union of India RPN 570/2002 and is on page No.57 to 68.  

13.     The forum issued notice to the Opposite Party in this case and thereafter attended the forum and filed written reply as under.  

14.     Opposite Party in its reply stated that the complainant is not a consumer as per Sec.2(1)d(2) of consumer protection act. The other objection of the opposite party is that complainant is an ex employee and accepted voluntary retirement on 31/03/2001 under Bank Of Baroda Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme – 2001 and as per Consumer  Protection Act 2(1)(O) has not accepted any service and therefore this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and on this ground the complaint be dismissed.

15.     As per OP ‘Contributory Medical Assistance Scheme for Retired Employees’ was introduced on 09/11/2000 vide Circular no. HO:BR:92/317. The said scheme was for the employees who have already retired and who shall retire for the bank services in future and the membership of the scheme was open for the followings-                  

(a) the persons who have retired from the bank services on superannuation secondly those who have been allowed to retire/resign from the bank services in terms of BOB officers services regulations 1979 and who are not gainfully employed.

 As complainant was not eligible for the said scheme therefore he was denied the membership of the said scheme the complaint be dismissed and further complainant  is not a consumer under sec 2(1)(d) of the Act. OP accepted para 1 and 2 of the complaint but  replied for para 3 that the employees opting under the BOBEVRS-2001 shall not be eligible under Contributory Medical Assistance Scheme for Retired Employees  As per OP para No.4,5 and 6 of the complaint is not  disputed.

 

16.     OP again states that dispute in the present complaint does not constitute a consumer dispute and except contribution ` 6900 all the averments in  para No.12 in the complaint are denied.  

17.     OP in its specific reply stated that Contributory Medical Assistance Scheme for Retired Employees were introduced on 09/11/2000 vide circular bearing No. HO.BR.92/317. The said scheme was for the employees who have already retired and who shall retired for the bank services in future and the membership of the scheme was open for the following and repeated the same statement as per para no.15(a) above.

(a)     the persons who have retired from the bank services on superannuation secondly those who have been allowed to retire/resign from the bank services on Medical ground and those who have taken voluntary retirement from the bank services in terms of provisions of BOB officers service regulations 1979 and who are not gainfully

employed.

 

18.     OP party also states that  the complainant was not eligible for the said scheme therefore he was denied for the membership of the said scheme. The Managing Committee of the staff welfare fund has taken the  matter of inclusion of retirees of BOBEVRS-2001 as agenda No.11 in the meeting held on 11-06-2010 and the committee after detailed deliberations  decided that the request for excluding membership to BOBEVRS-2001 retirees need not be considered for the present in view of precarious fund position of the staff welfare fund and also said that present dispute is a policy matter. Further the complainant for obtaining any services has not paid anything therefore having no right to complain has requested to dismiss this complaint.

19.     The complainant in his counter reply (affidavit) has explained how the OP statement is irrelevant. OP in its affidavit (reply) has mentioned issues as noted above and therefore it is not necessary to repeat the same matter again.

 20.     Forum also heard the arguments of the advocates of the complainant and OP and also have gone through the documents/judgements and forum have arrived to the following conclusion.

  

-// CONCLUSION //-

 21.     As per OP the complainant being its ex-employee and has not availed any service by making any payment complainant can not be considered as consumer and therefore this complainy be dismissed.  

22.     In support of its statement OP has put forth the judgement Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,Madras-1994 vol.13 page 63 “D.Yasodharan vs Chairman and Managing Director Canara Bank”. In this judgement dispute was for not providing benefit under the D.A. Bills, Housing Loans  therefore Stae Commission ordered that the complainant is not a consumer. But issues in the said complaint is totally different and hence not applicable to this complaint.

Similarly  in the judgement UPSDRC Lucknow 1999 CPI-478 “Principle R.S.M.College –v/s- Smt Rekha & others decided as under:      

Teachers employed in the Government Schools/colleges not consumers –  District forum irred in holding Consumer dispute involved – Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate. In this judgement demand was for the Arrears of Salary Due Hon. State Commission observed that Complainant is not a consumer but the said judgement is not  applicable to this case.

 

23.             “I.M.A. –V/S- V.P.Shanta”  1995 CTJ 969 (SC) C.P.  in this judgement para No.55 is mentioned as under ….. “55. On the basis of the above discussion, we arrive at the following conclusions :- (12)Similarly, where as a part of its conditions of services , the employer bears the expenses of medical treatment of an employee and his family members dependent on him, the services rendered to such an employee and his family members by a medical practioner or a hospital/nursing home would not be free of charge and would constitute ‘service’ under Section 2(1)(o) of the act.”

 Judgement of Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madras-1994 Vol.3 page 63 “D.Yasodharan –v/s- Chairman & Managing Director,Canara Bank” is of the date before judgement of Apex Court.

In the judgement of 1995 as expressed by the Supreme Court service offered by an employee during his service period to the OP is assumed as consideration for the complainant to obtain medical services. Hence since services offered by the complainant during his service period is the consideration therefore forum turns down the OP statement as it has no base to say that the complainant is not a consumer.

 

24.        National commission judgement “ Jagdish Kumar Bajpai –v/s- Union Of India, Ministry of Health Welfare & General Health, 2006, CTJ-7(CP),NCDRC” In this judgement after considering 7 important judgements of the Apex court has proved as under.

For achieving the goal  of Welfare State and for discharging its obligations to its employees, the Central Government has framed CGH Scheme as a welfare measure which is part and parcel of service benefits available to the employees in service as well as to the retired employees.

 Where as a part of the condition of service the employer bears the expenses of the medical treatment of an employee and his family members the services rendered to such an employee and family members by a medical practitioner or a hospital would not be free of charge.  

Most practical raison d’etre for pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old age. One may live and avoid unemployment but not senility and penury if there is nothing to fall back upon.  

25.        THIS FORUM IS OF THE CLEAR OPINION as decided in the above judgement even if complainant without paying any compensation or availed free service even then services offered by the complainant during his service period even if it is a free service even then service comes under section (2)(1)(O) and he constitutes the consumer of the OP.

 

26.     Complainant also relied on the following judgements and also this judgement “IMA –v/s- V.P.Shanta and also “Laxman Thamppa Kotgiri –v/s- G.M.Central Railway”. Both these judgements of the Apex Court and National Commission judgement “South Western Railway,Keshavpur,Hubli –v/s- D.J>Manual- 2011,Vol.3,DPJ-22(NC)” following has been stated.

 

Consumer Protection Act,1986-Sections 2(1)(d), 2(1)(o), 2(1)(g),21(b) – Railway Servants (Pass Rules,1986- Rule 3(vii)-Retired Employee- Privilege Pass for journey-Double journey request rejected- Consumer Forum dismissed complaint – state Commission allowed complaint – Hence appeal – Contention free pass provided by railway to its retired employees, complainant can not be treated as consumer- Not accepted – Settled lae that service though freely provided by the OP to its employees including retired employees would be service under 2(1)(o)-

Extra distance is within parameter of 15% of direct route – Purpose is to take advantage of terminal facilities – Benefit of Clause (vii) of Rule-3 can not be denied – State Commission order upheld.  

Also decided that retired employee from Railways is eligible to file complaint under Consumer Protection Act. Also clarified that as per section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act service offered by the complainant during his service period becomes consideration for service.  Therefore submission of the OP that complainant is not a consumer or he has not availed any service or complainants dispute is not a consumer dispute is totally wrong and therefore forum again rejects the same.

 27.      It is also established in the aforesaid judgement of Jagdish Kumar Bajpai of National Commission as per para 10 . From the aforesaid settled law, it is clear that pension scheme varies from time to time in the society. Pension is paid according to rules and it provides social security law alongwith benefits in kind such as free medical aid. In a democratic welfare state this is a necessity for survival of retired employees. Hence, pension including other service benefits payable under the scheme framed by the Government is a valuable right vesting in a retired Government employee. Hence pension  including other service benefits payable under the scheme framed by a  Government is a valuable right vesting in a retired Government employee. It is part of wages and in that it consists of payment provided by an employer, is paid in consideration of past service and purpose of helping the recipient to meet the expenses of living. It is not a bounty but is an obligation of a welfare society and that too it is in accordance with the constitutional goal. It is also to be stated that medical facilities or aid is mostly needed after the age of retirement.

 

28.      The complainant has stated in para 14 of the complaint that the cause of action is continually since 31.03.2001. Also as established by the Supreme Court order dtd.27/03/2009 “SLP No.22704/2005.CA No.1942/2009, Bank of India –v/s- K.Mohandas “ cause of action arose in this case. This has been denied by the OP without giving any reasoning hence complainants say of the cause of action is acceptable to this forum. Similarly the forum is of the clear opinion that even after clear judgement of the Supreme Court that OP should consider voluntarily retired employee as regular pensioner OP failed to provide service to complainant the cause of action continues.

 

29.     As per complainant after  ‘OP declared Bank Of Baroda Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme’ on 14/12/2000 has sought voluntary retirement after he was found eligible under the scheme. As per complainant OP circular No. HOBR-92/317 Dtd.14/12/2000 (All permanent employees of the Bank, working in India-based officers working abroad who, as om 31st March 2001 would have completed/would be completing 40 years of age shall be eligible to apply for voluntary retirement under BOBEVRS-2001). As per circular Dtd.09/11/2000 retired employees are required to contribute half of the amount of basic pay and special pay if any and accordingly complainant has offered contribution of ` 8070 to join the scheme but OP refused for that.

30.     This forum after considering all the facts notice that  Apex Court in their judgement “Bank of India –v/s- K.Mohandas (Supra)”has clearly settled that VRS employees are regular pensioner as per Pension Regulation 29. Considering other notings of the OP  from complainant `2000 and       ` 8070 contribution under Bank of Baroda Retired EmployeesContributory Medical Aid Scheme complainant and his wife was eligible for benefits under the scheme, and OP statement and conclusion in this matter are totally wrong and of mischievous type, simultaneously OP by not following the ground reality of the Supreme Court judgement in the year 2009  and avoiding  the ORDER is acting arbitrarily, is proved.

This forum therefore opines that total action of the OP is grave deficiency in service and have discriminately acted with the retired employees.

 

31.     OP stated that decision taken by the Staff Welfare Fund Managing Committee as under.  

Keeping in view the current fund position of the Staff Welfare Fund the Managing Committee resolved that at present not to provide membership under Bank of Baroda Contributory Scheme Medical Assistance Scheme to BOBEVRS-2001 optees.  

32.     The Complainant in his complaint clearly stated that it is only the Board of Director of the OP Bank who decided to introduce Contributory Medical Assistance Scheme for Retired Employees are entitled and empowered to make a decision as regards also to non extension of the benefits of the Medical Scheme to the retirees of Bank of Baroda Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme-2001. This decision of non extension of medical benefits to retired pensioners (BOBEVRS-2001)was also to be taken by the Board of Directors of the bank therefore decision of Managing Committee of the staff welfare fund is without any authority . The complainant’s statement feels to be reasonable.

 

33.     In a judgement filed by the complainant in case ‘Jagdish Kumar Bajpai’ in respect of employee welfare scheme Supreme Court in a judgement D.S.Nakara –v/s- Union of India – 1983, Vol-1,S.C.C. 305 has established as under.  In the said case the court held that the reasons of underlying the grant of pension vary from country to country and from scheme to scheme. It pertinently observed that it is a welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey-day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch. The court also held that it was antiquated notion that pension was bounty or gratuitous payment and observed:-

“A political society which has a goal of setting up of a welfare State, would introduce and has in fact introduced as  welfare measure wherein the retrial benefit is grounded on ‘considerations of obligation to its citizens who having rendered service during the useful span of life must not be left to penury in their old age, but evolving concept of social security is a later day development”.

“26… A pension scheme consistent with available resources must provide that the pensioner would be able to live (i) free from want, with decency, independence and self respect and (ii) at a standard equivalent at the pre retirement level. This approach may merit the criticism that if a developing country like India can not provide an employee while  rendering service a living wage, how can one be assured of it in retirement? This can aptly illustrated by a small illustration. A man with a broken arm asked his doctor whether he will able to play a piano after the cast is removed. When assured that he will, the patient replied, “that is funny, I could not before”, it appears that determining the minimum amount required for living decently is difficult, selecting the percentage representing the proper ratio between earnings and the retirement income is harder. But it is imperative to note that as self sufficiency declines the need for his attendance or institutional care grows. Many are literally surviving now than in the past. We owe it to them and ourselves that they live, not merely exist. The philosophy prevailing in a given society at various stages of its development profoundly influences its social objectives. These objective are in turn a determinant of a social policy. The law is one of the chief instruments whereby a social  policies are implemented and “pension is paid according to rules which can be said to provide social security law by which it is meant those legal mechanisms primarily concerned to ensure the provision for the individual of a cash income adequate, when taken along with the benefits in kind provided by other social services (such as free medical aid) to ensure for him a culturally acceptable minimum standard of living when the normal means of doing so failed”. (see Social Security Law by Prof. Harry Calvert.p.1)

 

Similarly Mumbai Bench of the Mumbai Highcourt have settled as under in their judgement “ Madhav K. Kirtikar –v/s- Bank of India” on 7th January 1997 Reported in 1997(2) MHLJ 559 and this judgement becomes applicable this case because in both there exists similarity.

1.      “para 6 It is pointed out that the provisions which classified the retired employees into two classes artificially is arbitrary and not based on any rational has no nexus to be object sought to be achieved by introducing the pension scheme. It is therefore, contended that the impugned action of the respondent Bank is contrary to and violative of article 14 of the constitution.

The Forum is of the opinion that  even after the High Court verdict on this legal position in this case OP bank  after Discriminately dividing among two pensioners have tried to divulge the BOBEVRS-2001 pensioners interest. And this is against the constitution of India.  

34.     At the time of argument OP advocate argued about retired pensioners(BOBEVRS –2001) scheme that in the scheme Exgratia payment  includes medical benefits. When asked by the Forum that whether the scheme envisages this matter? The advocate remained silent and negated the reply. This also proves bad intention of the OP towards its pensioners.

 

35.     The complainant also submitted also submitted the information obtained under Right to Information on page No.166, 167 and 168. The salient points of the same are as under( Letter Dt.12/05/2011 from Deputy General Manager)  

Reply to point No.1 : Financial year wise number of employees retired from bank under superannuation, Special VRS, Resignation separately for category of staff such as officers, award staff is enclosed as annexure-A

Reply to point No.2 : Bank does not invite the ex-employees for membership, However, they can apply for membership the prescribed format along with the one time subscription.

Reply to point No.3: List of Number of ex-employees,  who have contributed for membership is enclosed as Annexure-B.

 

36.      As per Annexure A OP extended medical benefits of aforesaid  the to all type of pensioners but 3429 award staff and 3099 officers forming total 6528 pensioners under BOBEVRS-2001 are excluded from the scheme . This is totally proved from the aforesaid annexure A and B. Also since 2001 Number of pensioners benefited every year is also clearly mentioned therefore OP bank is discriminately behaving with the BOBEVRS-2001 pensioners also becomes clear. This is totally against the Section 14 of the constitution and this is also mentioned by the High Court as stated above and this is also the opinion of the forum.

 37.     All pensioners of BOBEVRS-2001 have now become the senior citizen. Under the  Consumer Protection Act Rules 2005 rule No.26(6) is mentioned as under ….

The cases filed by or against the senior citizens, PHYSICALLY AILMENTS SHALL BE LISTED AND DISPOSED OFF ON A PRIORITY BASIS. From this also it becomes clear that in a welfare state senior citizens are given priority at all levels but OP instead of giving fair treatment to the bank pensioners is continuing to act against senior citizen. This is the opinion of the Forum. It will also be reasonable that along with complainant other 2001 pensioners requests be accepted by the O P for providing medical services after getting applicable contribution from them is the Opinion of this forum because pensioners are kept aside from the benefits of medical scheme provided to other pensioners. OP should take a careful note of this and restore membership.

 38.        From this after retirement period of employees they should get medical assistance continually with this sole objective only the scheme was formed. But action of OP with negative and against the interest of the retirees loophole is formed in the objective of implementation of medical scheme as per directives of the Govt. of India, which action by  public sector bank forms a bad footing. OP being a public sector bank and a nationalized bank acted without thinking of benefits to pensioners against the interest of pensioners as a owner behaving unlike owners of private establishments giving discriminatory treatment to retirees under voluntary retirement scheme 2001 by keeping them away from the benefits. This being the clear opinion of  the Forum  and action of the OP is totally irrelevant in the opinion of this Forum and that is the deficiency in  service. Similarly in the clear opinion of this forum complainant is eligible for availing medical benefits and it will not be improper if other pensioners unlike complainant also applies OP it will not be improper for OP to sympathetically consider their request is the conclusion of this Forum.

 

39.             From the above analysis it has been proved that there is deficiency in customer service by the OP and therefore orders as under.

  

-// FINAL ORDER //-

 

1.      Complaint of the complainant is partly allowed.

 2.      Opposite Party No. 1 to 3 are ordered that, after obtaining `.8070 as contribution  as per bank’s circular  No.HOBR:92/317 dated 09/11/2000 with applicable benefits in the year 2001 from the complainant OP should enroll for membership to complainant of the Contributory Medical Aid Scheme for Retired Employees.

 

3.      Opposite Party No. 1 to 3 are ordered that, by not enrolling the complainant and his wife from membership of the scheme they had been kept away from medical benefits had to bear physical, mental agony and financial loss suffered therefore should compensate complainant by paying ` 20000, and  ` 5000 towards cost of proceedings in this complaint. The amount should be paid.

 

4.      Aforesaid order be followed by the Opposite Party within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

 

 

THE ENGLISH TRANSLATED VERSION OF THE ORDER DATED 31-12-2011 IS MADE BY ME