In the Court of State
Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
National
Capital Territory of Delhi
25- D,
Mata Sundari Road, Near Guru Nanak Eye Centre, New Delhi-2
[Vested with powers of Civil Court under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016]
Case No. 4/920/2015/Wel-CD/6085-86 Dated: 13.03.2018
In
the matter of:
Ms. Pooja
W/o
Sh. Manoj Kumar
B-4/261,
Sector -07, Rohini
Delhi
-110085
........Petitioner
Versus
General Manager
Delhi SC/ST/OBC/Min. & Handicapped
Financial Development Corporation
(DSFDC)
Ambedkar Bhawan, Sector -16, Rohini
New Delhi -110085
..................Respondent
Date of Hearing: 6.03.2018
Present: Sh. Sunil Kumar Sachdeva, Dy.
Manager (P), Sh. Amarjit Singh, Asstt. Manager (Transport) for Respondent,
Ms. Pooja: Complainant
ORDER
The above named complainant
W/o Shri Manoj Kumar, a person with 100 temporary disability, vide a complaint
dated 17.03.2015 submitted that her husband was working as MTS in the office of
respondent. She had submitted the medical bills of Rs. 17 Lakh for
reimbursement on 24.04.2015 in respect of her late husband who expired on
22.03.2015. However, the amount had not been paid to her and she was also not
given appointment in place of her husband.
2. The complaint was taken up with the
respondent vide communication dated 17.03.2015. The then Commissioner also
heard the parties on 30.04.2015, 20.05.2016, 11.06.2015, 15.07.2015,
30.09.2015, 02.11.2015 and 14.12.2015 till the last communication from the
respondent on 06.07.2016. The respondent submitted that an amount of Rs.
4,68,825/-was paid. However, the medical bills amounting to Rs. 4,68,423 which
were submitted by the complainant after a gap of 4 months to more than a period
of one year from the date of discharge from the hospital and after the death of
Shri Manoj Kumar had become time barred and were rejected by the competent
authority.
3. As regards appointment of Ms. Pooja
on compassionate ground, the respondent submitted that the committee
constituted for the purpose had submitted a report which was under
consideration of competent authority. As there was no further update and the
complaint was pending, the respondent was requested to intimate the status vide
letter dated 27.12.2017 and thereafter a hearing was scheduled on 06.03.2018.
The respondent vide letter dated 17.02.2018 submitted the status of the
complaint which is reproduced below:-
“The Corporation has reimbursed an amount
of rs. 16,70,047/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Seventy Thousand Forty Seven Only) on
account of medical treatment of Shri Manoj Kumar, MTS (now deceased) of this
Corporation. Very recently the Corporation vide cheque bearing No. 026951 dated
09.02.2018 amounting to Rs. 2,01,222/- has reimbursed the remaining medical
bills to Smt. Pooja in respect of medical treatment of Shri. Manoj Kumar,
Ex-MTS incurred by her on the treatment of her husband. The details of medical
reimbursement are given below:-
|
S. No.
|
Name of hospital
|
Period of hospitalization
|
Amount claimed
|
Amount reimbursed
|
|
|
1
|
Maharaja Agrasen Hospital
|
28.11.2013
|
09.12.2013
|
308683
|
278007
|
|
2
|
Fortis Memorial Research
Institute
|
09.12.2013
|
31.01.2014
|
1766516
|
1190818
|
|
|
|
10.02.2014
|
12.02.2014
|
48046
|
24248
|
|
30.03.2014
|
02.04.2014
|
62139
|
34365
|
||
|
02.05.2014
|
04.05.2014
|
34699
|
12202
|
||
|
27.02.2014
|
02.06.2014
|
111461
|
54526
|
||
|
19.08.2014
|
26.08.2014
|
135136
|
44485
|
||
|
04.01.2015
|
05.01.2015
|
76942
|
31396
|
||
|
|
|
|
Total
|
2543622
|
1670047
|
Further, all the medical bills claimed by
Smt. Pooja for reimbursement has been made by the Corporation as per the
medical reimbursement scheme of the Corporation on account of treatment of Shri
Manoj Kumar, MTS (now expired) and at present no medical bill is pending for
reimbursement in the Corporation.
Further, Smt. Pooja W/o Late Shri Manoj
Kumar, the then MTS had applied for her appointment on compassionate ground.
Accordingly, the Corporation had constituted a Committee vide office order No.
643, dated 24.12.2016 (copy enclosed) under the chairmanship of the then
General Manger to consider the representation received from the family members
of various deceased employees for their appointment on compassionate ground in
the Corporation. Accordingly, the Committee considered all the cases received
for appointment on compassionate ground and found that up to a maximum of 5% of
vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota in any group ‘C’ posts.
Accordingly, the committee after considering the rule position found that four
posts have already been filled on compassionate ground in the Corporation.
Therefore, the committee recommended at present there is no vacancy available
in the Corporation. In such conditions, the representations which are received
from the family members of the deceased employees cannot be considered at this
stage.
Hence, the request received from various
family members of the deceased employees of the Corporation were considered and
rejected consequent upto recommendations of the Committee”.
4. During the hearing on 6.3.2018, the
complainant submitted that her case for appointment as MTS on compassionate
ground had been processed and approved. However, because of certain reasons,
she was not issued offer of appointment.
She also submitted that her condition is very pathetic as she is only 31
years old and has small baby to raise.
Her in-laws are also dependent on her and therefore she deserves the
sympathy of the organisation for appointment as she has no other means to
support herself and the family.
5. With regard to the reimbursement of
the medical bills , the complainant stated that she submitted medical bills of
Rs. 4, 68,423/- during 2014-15 and the
last one was submitted on 27.05.2015. Against
the said bills, she has been reimbursed an amount of Rs. 2, 01,222/- in
February, 2018 which is not according to the rates of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital,
which she is entitled to whereas she has been paid at the DGHS Rates.
6. The representatives of the respondent
reiterated the written submissions and added that the decision about the
appointment on compassionate grounds has been taken in accordance with the
instructions of DOP &T as per which only 5% vacancies could be filled on
compassionate grounds. There are four
applicants and no vacancy for appointment on compassionate ground in the
corporation. As regards the reimbursement of medical bills at DGHS rates, the
same was done in compliance with the decision of the 144th Board
Meeting held on 28.07.2015 that all the medical bills irrespective of the date
of submission would be reimbursed at DGHS rates. He also stated that the complainant had
submitted the bills after 4 to 12 months of delay. The then competent authority had decided that
the bills be processed as per the medical rules which provide that final claim
for reimbursement of medical expenses in respect of particular spell of illness
should ordinarily be preferred within 3 months from the date of completion of
treatment as shown in the last essentiality certificate issued by various
medical /medical officers concerned. The
competent authority i.e. Board in its 152nd meeting held on
29.12.2017 condoned the delay and approved the reimbursement of medical
bills. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.
201,222/- was processed and paid to the complainant on 9.2.2018.
7. It is observed that the appointments on
compassionate grounds are to be made in accordance with DOP &T’s O.M. No.
14014/02/2012-Est./(D) dated 16.01.2013.
One of the conditions for such appointments is that there will be a
ceiling of 5% of direct recruitment vacancies for making compassionate
appointments and appointments are to be made on the recommendation of the committee
to be constituted especially for this purpose.
The committee has to examine and decide each case on its merit. Therefore, it will be appropriate to leave the
decision to the Committee. The
complainant may submit her representation to the office of respondent for placing
before the committee for its consideration.
8. With regard to reimbursement of the
medical bills, since the competent authority condoned the delay, the rates prevailing
at the time of treatment would be applicable. Admittedly, the board decided to
apply DGHS rates on 28.07.2015 i.e. after the date of treatment and submission
of the bills by the complainant.
Therefore, the complainant should have been reimbursed the medical bills
at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital rates. Accordingly,
it is recommended that the remaining amount due to the complainant should be
paid to the complainant within one month and an action taken report be
submitted to this court within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order as
required under section 81 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Act, 2016.
9.
The complaint is disposed off accordingly.
10. Given under my hand and the seal of the
Court this 12th day of March, 2018.
(T.D. Dhariyal )
Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities
