CONSUMER PROTECTION

Revamp consumer protection laws

THE CONSUMER movement is in its nascent stage in our country and must therefore be nurtured with due care and protected from the evils of the notorious court culture. It is imperative that the consumer laws should be oriented towards consumer interests. Consumer problems mostly emanate from the tardy working of the consumer courts. Unfortunately, these laws comprising the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 followed by Amendment Acts 1991, 1993 and more recently 2002 have done nothing to insulate the consumer courts established under them from the old-time law court culture of tardy working, delays, dilatory tactics, adjournments and postponements on flimsy grounds and technicalities, bribery, underhand dealings, presence of advocates and other malpractices.

It was expected that this statute would meet the challenges of a vastly different nature in a rapidly changing social order that yearns to replace the dictum "beware consumer" with "consumer is king" both in theory and practice. However, just the opposite has been achieved. The consumer courts have adopted the same work culture and ethos that prevail in other law courts in the country. Ironically, the government, which attaches much vocal importance to consumer protection, enacted Amendment Acts that have made the laws still more consumer-hostile than before.

Penalties clause

The lawmakers conveniently forgot that this legislation is of far reaching ramifications for the simple reason that everybody is a consumer and the common man by and large is litigation-shy. He knocks the doors of justice as a last resort and prefers to suffer in silence unless the stakes for him are very high indeed. Apart from money, the time, energy and patience required to pursue a case are other great inhibiting factors. The Amendment Act 2002 makes the benefits of the legislation costlier by prescribing a court fee for filing a complaint (previously there was no court fee or stamp duty to be paid). A complaint may be dismissed if the complainant even once fails to appear before the court on the date of hearing. What, however, takes the cake is an amendment in section 27— the Penalties clause. It puts the aggrieved complainant on the same footing as his tormentor so far as imposing of penalties is concerned. If not for ushering in a new social order to stall an indomitable and unscrupulously penetrating phenomenon of abuse of consumers, to what else, one wonders, the legislation should address itself?

A pigmy Mr. Consumer is pitted against the unscrupulous corporate giants — "Dons," "Sharks" and "Kings" of industries both in the public and private sectors joined by equally unscrupulous advertisers, chain of retailers, traders and salesmen and now to cap it all are the laws that choose not to recognise the fact that single-handedly he is not fighting for the redress of his own grievances alone but in the process also espousing a laudable social cause and, therefore, his interests need to be protected in the larger interests of society as a whole. By fighting for his rights, he is also enriching society and the nation.

Canons of natural justice demand that an aggrieved complainant who takes pains to agitate the law for the redress of his grievances against such a formidable combination should be afforded all possible help and consideration in securing justice. Instead, each successive amendment makes his task still more inhibitive. The consumer protection laws are now more retrograde and intricate. They defeat the very purpose i.e. "consumer protection" for which they were brought on the statute book.

Presence of lawyers

Further most of the maladies arise due to the presence of advocates and lawyers in the consumer courts. This institution should have no place in the administration of justice in consumer disputes just as it has no place in Family courts. Even an illiterate consumer can protect his interests provided the laws are made less intricate and the procedure simple, economical and hassle-free. The advocates and the lawyers should be barred from presenting and arguing the cases involving consumer grievances. The proceedings under the Act should be oriented differently quite distinct from those of civil or criminal courts if at all we are interested in reforming the consumer justice delivery system. In due course a different free-from-corruption-and-malpractices consumer court culture will evolve provided the consumer protection laws are revamped and fresh consumer-friendly legislation is immediately brought about with a view to effecting the much needed change in consumer justice administration and delivery system.

SANJOG MAHESHWARI

JUDICIARY AND MEDIA

Debate

Media-savvy judiciary good for consumer interest
By Sanjog Maheshwari

Thanks to the media-shyness of the judiciary, many cases, in which judicial pronouncements and decisions lay down principled and lawful guidelines for the government agencies to follow in all matters, never see the light of the day as the case files remain buried in the dusty confines of the courts’ record rooms. Way back in 2004, an NGO, Common-Cause, under the dynamic stewardship of its the then Director the late H.D. Shouri filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court contending that installation, maintenance, repair and replacement of water metres is the duty and the sole responsibility exclusively of the service provider in this case the government-owned Delhi Jal Board. However, millions of Delhi consumers aren’t any wiser about their right and the government-owned Delhi Jal Board continues to arm-twist the consumers to install, maintain and replace, as the case may be, the water metres privately at their own cost and responsibility otherwise they have to shell out consumptive charges at a presumptive average which is much higher than the actual average for the immediately preceding last one year consumption recorded by the DJB-installed metre.

For the obvious reasons, given the choice, not a single consumer out of several millions would like to go for private installation of metre at his own cost and responsibility. While a DJB-installed metre lasts for many years, the life-span of a privately-installed metre does not usually average more than a year. More often than not it is pronounced ‘faulty’ or ‘defective’ much earlier and the poor consumer ends up paying highly inflated bills raised on the basis of presumptive average consumption until he chooses to again fall prey to the vicious circle of installation-replacement-installation of the privately-installed metre at frequent intervals which is far more bothersome and costly affair than paying the inflated bills. Though in all such cases the DJB logically and also legally should raise bills at the actual average for the preceding last one year consumption as recorded by its own metre when that was operating as decided in yet another such case—R.C. Maheshwari vs. DJB—Judgment delivered by the District Forum, Janakpuri on 15-01-02 and upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Commission who while upholding the learned Lower Court’s decision, dismissed the appeal of the DJB as unnecessary (vide their orders dated 14-02-2006 and 06-07-2006; appeal case no. 257/02). The case assumes significance and importance not only for its landmark decision but also for a noteworthy observation made in it by the Commission headed by Justice J.D.Kapoor, President. Delivering the judgment which was to be referred to the reporters also as per the Court’s direction, the Commission inter-alia, laid down the guidelines to be observed in all such cases also. In most unmistakable terms Justice Kapoor observed, “Any amount received in excess or towards metre by the service provider have to be refunded and cannot be allowed even by any provision of law to be adjusted towards future bills. Retention of such amount or its adjustment towards future bills has to be followed by payment of interest.” The landmark judgment apart, the case generates an interesting debate on the tariff-plan and billing of the domestic supply of water as distinct from the billing of its industrial and commercial supply. In the case of the former, the water is consumed by the ultimate consumer to whom the commodity is gifted by the Mother Nature in great abundance and as freely as its two other life-sustaining gifts—air and sunshine—and the service-providing agencies have no role, whatsoever, to play in its production and as such have no authority to commodify it. While they are entitled to levy the service charges at the flat rates for the treatment of water and bringing it to homes through piped supply for domestic use, they cannot levy consumptive charge. The life-sustaining gift of the Nature belongs to all the living beings. Its ownership indisputably vests with the people and the owner cannot be charged for consuming a commodity that belongs to him. The consumptive charge is, therefore, levy-able only in case of commercial or industrial use of water and certainly not on its domestic supply. The establishment cannot take an alibi in citing ‘scarcity’. The culprits responsible for creating this interminably torturous ‘scarcity amidst plenty” syndrome are gross mismanagement, rampant corruption, unplanned development and urbanization, burgeoning population and so forth; certainly not the people. However, the fiduciary responsibility of the government to protect and keep the water bodies and resources clean and in excellent condition all the time is not waived.

The service-providing government agencies are very well aware of the fact that their services are miles behind the normal expectations of and otherwise much-tolerant and docile Indian consumer let alone the international standards. This awareness of the deplorable quality of their services makes them scary even before any measure for consumer-empowerment is hinted, let alone initiated. No wonder, they don’t want government to make them more accountable to consumers and resist any such move tooth and nail. Not only this, the establishment itself does not want expeditious disposal of such cases where a consumer is pitted against a government service-providing agency and they have many tricks up their sleeves to keep the consumer courts under a handicap. Even very simple cases go on dragging much after the judgment vindicating a consumer’s stand is delivered as it takes another long stretching legal battle before a common consumer can think of getting even a small slice of the reliefs granted. The gainful interaction between judiciary and media is likely to go a long way in alleviating the sufferings of hapless nobodies in their quest for justice.

(The author can be contacted at C-1A/42 B, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058)

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Consumer gets little protection from law

Sanjog Maheshwari

THE CONSUMER Protection Law may not, prima facie, appear consumer-hostile but the ground realities under which it operates render it totally ineffective against the goverment-owned utilities, boards and organisations, etc.

If any government department, body, public utility concern or organisation rubs you on the wrong side, as an ordinary consumer the best options for you are: (a) to suffer patiently in silence, (2) bribe your way out of the problem. Do not agitate law through the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended by the (Amendment) Act 2002 unless you are a hard-core moralist ready to brave an extremely long drawn and relentlessly cruel legal battle in which all the odds are against you and the end of the tunnel may not be in sight during your life time.

For you Mr. Ordinary litigant, to be pitted against a formidable litigation-minded government, in quest of justice, would be like chasing the elusive mirage, a thoroughly nerve-wracking and disastrously expensive experience. Even the hardiest amongst you having nerves of steel will yearn to quit the legal battle in the midway but will find it not easy. Before long, he will realise that he is riding a tiger from which it is impossible to dismount unscathed.

The Consumer Protection Act has not so far conferred any power on the redress forums constituted under it to pass interim orders by way of injunction, etc., pending original proceedings instituted before the forums and as such in its present form offers no protection against the atrocities and dilatory tactics of the bureaucrats and officials of the litigant government agency concerned.

Further, in the long-standing consumer disputes the government and its agencies find it most convenient to file an appeal against each and every order passed by a lower court. In this three tier justice delivery system, an appeal against the orders of a district forum can be filed in the State commission against whose orders in turn, the decision would lie with the national commission and then the matter can go up to the Supreme Court.

For an ordinary litigant-consumer, it becomes an interminable legal battle against the almighty government which can easily afford infinite time, a battery of lawyers, unlimited resources in the form of taxpayers' money to spend in defending even a totally hopeless and defenceless case?

Moreover, the officials of the government and its agencies routinely flout the court orders when finally passed. They hold them in utter contempt and wait for the initiation of contempt proceedings. Evading presence to respond to the court's queries, frequently seeking adjournments, seeking refuge in myriad technicalities and resorting to other delaying tactics are the other bureaucratic practices that add to the endless woes of a litigant consumer against which even the courts are helpless.

Changes are overdue

Ironically, the Act treats the very much handicapped litigant consumer as evenly matched with and equal to an almighty and awfully powerful government. It thus ignores the obvious and fails to provide level playing ground for the consumer. Obviously in actual practice the Act operates heavily loaded in favour of the government and justice is routinely denied to the litigant consumer. Drastic changes in it are overdue.

The consumers are rapidly losing faith in this nascent consumer grievances redress and justice delivery system. In practice the Act miserably fails to provide any relief to an aggrieved consumer against the wrongs done to him by the government-owned service providers, agencies, public utility concerns, boards and organisations.

The bureaucrats should be forced to implement the court orders as soon as they are passed. Their penchant for going in for appeal against every order of the court and the tendency to wait for the initiation of contempt proceedings must be curbed with heavy hand. The Act needs to be amended to provide for built-in safeguards against those actions of the government which are inimical to the interests of the litigant consumers.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Cosumers’ protection law not effective
Consumer as victim of globalisation
By Sanjog Maheshwari

Twenty years and three Amending Acts later, the Consumer law has less bite and more cosmetic power. While certain provisions in the Amending Acts of 1991, 1993 and 2002 such as disposal of complaint and appeal within 90 days, establishment of branches and circuit courts, not allowing the opposite party to engage a legal practitioner if the complainant has not engaged one still remain on paper, the consumer-hostile provisions such as unilateral dismissal of the complaint where the complainant fails to appear on the date of hearing, introduction of fee for filing the complaint, etc. that are detrimental to the interests of the consumers have already been enforced.

Consumer Protection Act has not so far conferred any power on the Redressal Forums to pass interim orders. The government and its instrumentalities find it most convenient to file appeal against each and every order passed by a lower court. In this three tier justice delivery system, an appeal against the orders of a District forum can be filed in the State Commission, against whose orders in turn it would lie with the National Commission and then the matter can go up to the Supreme Court. For an ordinary litigant-consumer it becomes an interminable legal battle against the government that has unlimited resources in the form of taxpayers’ money.

The officials of the Government and its instrumentalities routinely flout the Court’s orders when finally passed. They hold them in utter contempt and wait for the initiation of enforcement proceedings. Evading presence to respond to the court’s queries, frequently seeking adjournments, seeking refuse in myriad technicalities and resorting to other delaying tactics are the other bureaucratic indulgences that add to the endless woes of a litigant consumer. The professional lawyers engaged by the government wield lot of clout in these fora. They manage to get adjournments at will. The myriad technicalities and loopholes in the law also come handy to them for dragging on even a hopelessly indefensible case. However, if the litigant-consumer happens to be somebody, not only does he get speedy justice but also reasonable compensation. He does not have to contest the Appeals and Applications that are routinely filed when Mr. Nobody is the Complainant. Sample this case: Omesh Saigal verses BSES Rajdhani Power Limited, as reported in a National Daily:-

Retd. Chief Secy wins bill fight against distcom.—Hindustan Times, May 9, 2005

A consumer court has ruled that the distcom BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. is guilty of harassing a senior citizen for more than two years by sending him false, inflated bills. Omesh Saigal is a former chief secretary of Delhi. Saigal was asked to pay huge sums for faulty bills. When he protested was threatened with disconnection of the supply,” said the district consumer court of South Delhi.

It directed BSES Rajdhani to pay Saigal Rs. 25,000 as compensation for mental tension, agony and physical harassment. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded as cost of litigation.

Saigal told the court that BSES Rajdhani sent him wrong bills repeatedly. The amount exceeded more than Rs one lakh and his attempts to correct the bills failed.

The court found BSES Rajdhani guilty of unfair trade practice and poor service. It also directed the company to withdraw old bills and issue new ones on the basis of actual consumption.

Everybody is not a Chief Secretary of a State Government to be thus rewarded. In all other similar cases, the hapless aggrieved consumer-litigant struggles in vain in quest of justice.

The menace of delayed justice can be countered if (a) the government and its utilities shed their penchant for filing appeals in each and every case, (b) the Government officials promptly implement the court orders instead of waiting for the initiation of the Order Enforcement Proceedings against them, (c) Exemplary punishment is meted out to the bureaucrats resorting to the delaying tactics and circumventing the court’s orders, (d) it is made mandatory to implement each and every order passed by a lower court in the first instance before going in appeal against it, (e) ban appearance of the professional lawyers in the consumer courts to contest consumer related disputes and (f) the Hon’ble Courts bear it in mind that they have been created to protect and safeguard the consumers’ interests and not the other way round.

The Act needs to be urgently amended to make it consumer-friendly. In its present form, it miserably fails to provide any relief to an aggrieved consumer against the wrongs done to him by the government owned service providers.

The aim should be to provide hassle-free, speedy and, if possible, time-bound justice to the litigant consumer.

(The writer can be contacted at C-1 A/42B MIG Flats, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058.)

Look within, don't malign Malaviya

Second opinion: Sanjog Maheshwari Mr N Jamal Ansari's article, "BHU, not AMU, to blame for partition" (Second Opinion, August 28) reflects his poor knowledge of Hinduism which, in fact, is a way of life that epitomises the purest form of secularism as embodied in the lofty ideal of vasudev kutumbakam. Both great Indians -- Madan Mohan Malaviya and Sir Syed Ahmed -- could be described as ambassadors of this spirit of secularism. Aligarh Muslim University and Banaras Hindu University are both great institutions of higher learning with exemplary secular credentials. If these institutes have shown occasional signs of digression from the lofty ideals of their founders, then how can one blame the latter?

During my five years of association with AMU, I had no occasion even to remotely suspect anybody harbouring any discrimination or bias against anyone on the basis of his or her religion. At the Hadi Hasan Hall of the hostel we were all part of a great family -- I was nicknamed Sanjogbhai, everyone else was so-and-so bhai for me. I am sure my other Hindu classmates of the time will agree with me when I say that we will always cherish the memories of our joyful association with our Muslim friends during our AMU days. My experiences suggest that the secular spirit of Sir Syed still pervades the cultural ambience of this great seat of learning.

By this, however, I do not mean to suggest even remotely that there has not been any unwanted incident in the long history of AMU. All those unfortunate things that happened in the past were because of politics. And politics is something that no institution has ever remained free of. I challenge Mr Ansari to show me one university campus that has remained unaffected by the avalanche of greed, corruption and quota/reservation politics. It is a fact that wherever there is students' politics there is bound to be the existence of a diverse spectrum of political opinion. This, many would contend, is an example of how democratic our educational institutions really are. Obviously, violence in the name of any ideology cannot be condoned.

Thus, Mr Ansari will do well not to indulge in the dirty game of mud-slinging and should refrain from maligning a person of the stature of Madan Mohan Malaviya.

DISCRIMINATION BY CGHS

Discrimination by CGHS

-SANJOG MAHESHWARI

While right to healthcare and medical facilities should be seen as an integral part of the right to life for all, the babus have ensured that world class healthcare, diagnostic and other medical facilities at posh private nursing homes, hospitals, healthcare centers at Government cost is available only to them, their families, their political boss MPs and other so-called VIPs and their families. The nursing home facilities in Government hospitals are also mostly cornered by such higher strata beneficiaries.

Medical specialists attached to the CGHS dispensaries, if they happen to be of some calibre, remain unavailable on their slotted schedule, as for months on end they are away on what is termed as VIP duties -- attending to the VIPs and their families.

There also exists a complex classification and sub-classification of CGHS beneficiaries in various categories, based on which the scale of facilities admissible to them under the scheme is decided. The parameters and norms differ from beneficiary to beneficiary, depending on the scale of pay or pension, the position he holds or held in the Government, etc.

What is most appalling is the fact that the pensioner-beneficiaries of autonomous bodies are not treated at par with their counterpart retired from purely Government service, particularly in the matter of grant of credit facilities in the recognised private healthcare centres, nursing homes, etc. Are they not as precariously placed both health-wise and resources-wise as their counterparts who retired from "purely Government service"?

The plight of an autonomous body pensioner, suffering from age-induced infirmities and debilitating diseases, is that he has to run around complying with absurd formalities, placating babus, getting department's permission before and after the treatment, incurring all expenses from his own slender resources on the spot in the first instance irrespective of the enormity of the amount of expenditure involved even in emergent circumstances. . Then irrespective of whether his health permits or not, he has to do several rounds first to get his reimbursement bill on the prescribed forms verified from the treating doctor, then to the department for its scrutiny only to get reimbursement of completely watered-down bill after several months of making repeated rounds to the department from which he retired. Besides this he has to get his permanent CGHS token card revalidated every calendar year before it begins, the fact that he had already made full payment for availing CGHS facilities for the whole life- at the same rate and scale applicable to his counterpart in the government service- on his retirement itself, not withstanding. The babus of his department with abnormally swelled egos take sadistic pleasure in retrenching the claimed amount on most flimsy grounds; feigning ignorance of the Delhi high court verdict that mandates full reimbursement of the expenditure incurred on the medical treatment, and that too after the claim is subjected to several absurd objections. The autonomous body pensioner-beneficiaries of CGHS have made several representations to the authorities of the Health Ministry including those to the Hon’ble Minister but all have fallen on deaf ears so far and the victims of this blatant discrimination continue to live under the ever-lengthening shadow of fear and insecurity. Even ventilating the grievances through media could not yield any positive results for these unfortunate CGHS pensioner-beneficiaries whose only sin is that they had retired from autonomous bodies. It would thus be apparent that the denial of credit facility and cashless service by private recognized hospitals to the CSIR and other autonomous body pensioners who are CGHS beneficiaries is a cruel, inhuman and heartless joke still being perpetuated on this particular section of hapless senior citizens in the twilight of their life even though their counterpart retirees from the government have been availing the facility for several years now.

As respected senior citizens of this country, all pensioners should be treated at par, particularly in the matter of healthcare and medical facilities. Age and the age alone should be the criterion to determine the priority in the matter of extending the benefits to a pensioner-beneficiary irrespective of the post and the grade he was in at the time of his retirement.

PRE-96 PENSIONERS BETRAYED

PENSION RULES- JUSTICE DENIED

-SANJOG MAHESHWARI.

Granting of pension and other related retiral benefits such as gratuity, family pension, leave encashment etc. on retirement is a socio-economic obligation which the governments are mandated to carry out for the security and welfare of the one who has spent all his active life in their service. The old pension rules have to be changed or modified from time to time in keeping with the changed socio-economic conditions of the society particularly when they warrant a revision in the pay scales of working employees. However, “social justice” which the rules are supposed to espouse becomes the first casualty when they are devised to discriminate against a section of the pensioners vis a vis a similarly placed another in the matter of grant of pension and other retiral benefits. Glaring example is the existing dispensation in which pensioners have been deliberately bracketed into two categories: pre-96 and post-96 pensioners with the former being placed at the receiving end of the discriminatory provisions in a Office Memorandum so much so that sometimes depending on the crucial date of his retirement, a pre-96 pensioner gets substantially less monthly pension and other related retiral benefits as compared to a similarly placed pensioner belonging to the post-96 category i.e. retiring on or after 01-01-96; even if both retire from the same post, with the same length of total service as also the service rendered in the post held at the time of retirement.

The Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare, in their infinite wisdom, issued two OMs on the same day i.e. 27^th October 1997 bearing the same number F.45/86/97- P &PW (A) albeit in two parts i.e. Part 1 and Part II. The former laying down formulae for calculation of pension etc. for the post-96 retirees and the later containing altogether different provisions for those retiring before 01-01-1996 which operates grossly against the legitimate interests and rights of the pre-96 pensioners leaving them grossly aggrieved and distraught. In the instant case, the babus of the Department issued Part 1 of the O.M. containing provisions for fixing pension and grant of other retrial benefits to Post-96 pensioners based on formulae quite different from those they incorporated in the Part II of it meant for Pre-96 pensioners putting the latter to the great disadvantage vis-à-vis their Post-96 counterparts and issued them on the same date i.e.27^th October 1997 itself. Much confusion, however, was created because in the part 1, it was mentioned that “Separate orders will be issued in respect of employees who retired/died before 1...1.1996” (Presumably at some later date). Naturally, the inference was drawn that their case is still being examined separately and for separate orders they should wait for some time more. Whether the gambit was intentional and deliberate or inadvertent can be anybody’s guess but most of those effected could not read in between the lines and kept on waiting “for separate orders” without registering their protests till their number was severely diminished through the natural process of disease and death and those left behind found themselves inadequate to the task of moving the officialdom.

Thus Pre-96 pensioners have been deprived of the benefits of revision in the pay scales by not notionally fixing their basic pay on retirement in the new scales for the purpose of revising their pension and other related pensionary benefits.

As the pre-96 pensioners have been crying foul ever since then, here are a few posers for the Governmenovernmetn ners and foot-dragging officialdom in the nent posers.nst the legitimate interest and rights of the pre-96 pensionerst to answer: Why the most legitimate and genuine rights of pre-96 pensioners i.e. parity with their post-96 counterparts are not honoured in spite of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s, most unmistakable directions to the effect that there should be no difference between one pensioner and the other- exhorting the executive not to differentiate between similarly placed two sections of the pensioners? Why this deeply flawed system remains unchanged and natural justice is denied to the pre-96 pensioners in spite of the Apex court’s further clear directions that in the matter of framing and application of rules and the working of the system the principles of “reasonableness and non-arbitrariness” –which are the soul and substance of Article 14 of the Constitution-must necessarily be adhered to and honoured? (In Maneka Gandhi’s case, a seven-judge Bench had held that “reasonableness and non-arbitrariness” are part of Article 14) Does a pre-96 pensioner holding a post for a certain length of time on the date of his superannuation/retirement in any way renders lesser service than his post-96 counterpart in the same post for the same length of time in similar conditions? If not, why he is being deprived of the benefits of proper pension and other retrial benefits effective from 1-1-96 consequent upon revision of pay scales from that date? Has he not already suffered the cruel irony of fate by getting superannuated at 58? And all this for the sin of taking birth at an earlier date without reckoning with the government’s arbitrary scheme of retirement on which he has no control.

Proper monthly pension and other related pensionary benefits are sacrosanct, protected and greatly valued possession of a Government servant. Denying them to the Pre-96 pensioners tantamount to travesty of justice and violation of Article 14 read with Article 31 (1) [Right to property] of the Constitution.

Though Article 14 that mandates “Equality before the law” as a fundamental right of all the citizens completely outlaws “unreasonableness and arbitrariness” in executive action, these unfortunate elements seem to be deeply imbedded in the very psyche of the bureaucracy and invariably factor-in in their decision making processes. While Babus frequently bend the rules to help themselves, they throw the book at those in powerless minority with no platform to ventilate their grievances and concerns.

Almost all these worthy super-senior citizens- the pre-96 pensioners- are over 70, suffering from hosts of terminal debilitating diseases and struggling to survive the ravages of “ills, bills, pills” and “empty nest” syndromes. They have been crying foul ever since they were wronged under the provisions of the dubious Part II of the O.M. but all in vain. Complete parity with post-96 retirees in the matter of revised pension and related pensionary benefits based on the fixation of the notional basic pay at the appropriate stage in the revised pay scales from 01-01-96 and the arrears due and admissible with interest thereon as per the rules is legitimately due to them and should, therefore, be paid immediately. Death and terminal diseases are no respecters of age and the government must act fast before it is too late. It is hightime the pension rules framing system is reoriented on the lines prevalent in the U.K. from where it, though originated, materially differs. While in the U.K. the system is governed by and flows from the “Statute”, here in our country instead of the “Statute” it is governed by the rules made in a government department manned by unduly biased bureaucrats for whom the word “reasonableness” does not seem to exist.

It is hoped that the government will accord this matter due importance and ensure justice to this microscopic minority of Pre-96 pensioners so that they may get what is due to them retrospectively from the date(s) it became due and admissible with interest accrued on the arrears to meet the ends of natural justice and fair-play.

DISCRIMINATORY PROVISIONS IN THE CGHS RULEBOOK

Discrimination by CGHS

-Sanjog Maheshwari

While right to healthcare and medical facilities should be seen as an integral part of the right to life for all, the babus have ensured that world class healthcare, diagnostic and other medical facilities at posh private nursing homes, hospitals, healthcare centers at Government cost is available only to them, their families, their political boss MPs and other so-called VIPs and their families. The nursing home facilities in Government hospitals are also mostly cornered by such higher strata beneficiaries.

Medical specialists attached to the CGHS dispensaries, if they happen to be of some calibre, remain unavailable on their slotted schedule, as for months on end they are away on what is termed as VIP duties -- attending to the VIPs and their families.

There also exists a complex classification and sub-classification of CGHS beneficiaries in various categories, based on which the scale of facilities admissible to them under the scheme is decided. The parameters and norms differ from beneficiary to beneficiary, depending on the scale of pay or pension, the position he holds or held in the Government, etc.

What is most appalling is the fact that the pensioner-beneficiaries of autonomous bodies are not treated at par with their counterpart retired from purely Government service, particularly in the matter of grant of credit facilities in the recognised private healthcare centres, nursing homes, etc. Are they not as precariously placed both health-wise and resources-wise as their counterparts who retired from "purely Government service"?

The plight of an autonomous body pensioner, suffering from age-induced infirmities and debilitating diseases, is that he has to run around complying with absurd formalities, placating babus, getting department's permission before and after the treatment, incurring all expenses from his own slender resources on the spot in the first instance irrespective of the enormity of the amount of expenditure involved even in emergent circumstances. . Then irrespective of whether his health permits or not, he has to do several rounds first to get his reimbursement bill on the prescribed forms verified from the treating doctor, then to the department for its scrutiny only to get reimbursement of completely watered-down bill after several months of making repeated rounds to the department from which he retired. Besides this he has to get his permanent CGHS token card revalidated every calendar year before it begins, the fact that he had already made full payment for availing CGHS facilities for the whole life- at the same rate and scale applicable to his counterpart in the government service- on his retirement itself, not withstanding. The babus of his department with abnormally swelled egos take sadistic pleasure in retrenching the claimed amount on most flimsy grounds; feigning ignorance of the Delhi high court verdict that mandates full reimbursement of the expenditure incurred on the medical treatment, and that too after the claim is subjected to several absurd objections. The autonomous body pensioner-beneficiaries of CGHS have made several representations to the authorities of the Health Ministry including those to the Hon’ble Minister but all have fallen on deaf ears so far and the victims of this blatant discrimination continue to suffer in silence. Even ventilating the grievances through media could not yield any positive results for these unfortunate CGHS pensioner-beneficiaries whose only sin is that they had retired from autonomous bodies. It would thus be apparent that the denial of credit facility and cashless service by private recognized hospitals to the CSIR and other autonomous body pensioners who are CGHS beneficiaries is a cruel, inhuman and heartless joke still being perpetuated on this particular section of hapless senior citizens in the twilight of their life even though their counterpart retirees from the government have been availing the facility for several years now.

As respected senior citizens of this country, all pensioners should be treated at par, particularly in the matter of healthcare and medical facilities. Age and the age alone should be the criterion to determine the priority in the matter of extending the benefits to a pensioner-beneficiary irrespective of the post and the grade he was in at the time of his retirement.

CGHS-IT'S BLATANTLY DISCRIMINATORY PROVISIONS

Discrimination by CGHS

-Sanjog Maheshwari

While right to healthcare and medical facilities should be seen as an integral part of the right to life for all, the babus have ensured that world class healthcare, diagnostic and other medical facilities at posh private nursing homes, hospitals, healthcare centers at Government cost is available only to them, their families, their political boss MPs and other so-called VIPs and their families. The nursing home facilities in Government hospitals are also mostly cornered by such higher strata beneficiaries.

Medical specialists attached to the CGHS dispensaries, if they happen to be of some calibre, remain unavailable on their slotted schedule, as for months on end they are away on what is termed as VIP duties -- attending to the VIPs and their families.

There also exists a complex classification and sub-classification of CGHS beneficiaries in various categories, based on which the scale of facilities admissible to them under the scheme is decided. The parameters and norms differ from beneficiary to beneficiary, depending on the scale of pay or pension, the position he holds or held in the Government, etc.

What is most appalling is the fact that the pensioner-beneficiaries of autonomous bodies are not treated at par with their counterpart retired from purely Government service, particularly in the matter of grant of credit facilities in the recognised private healthcare centres, nursing homes, etc. Are they not as precariously placed both health-wise and resources-wise as their counterparts who retired from "purely Government service"?

The plight of an autonomous body pensioner, suffering from age-induced infirmities and debilitating diseases, is that he has to run around complying with absurd formalities, placating babus, getting department's permission before and after the treatment, incurring all expenses from his own slender resources on the spot in the first instance irrespective of the enormity of the amount of expenditure involved even in emergent circumstances. . Then irrespective of whether his health permits or not, he has to do several rounds first to get his reimbursement bill on the prescribed forms verified from the treating doctor, then to the department for its scrutiny only to get reimbursement of completely watered-down bill after several months of making repeated rounds to the department from which he retired. Besides this he has to get his permanent CGHS token card revalidated every calendar year before it begins, the fact that he had already made full payment for availing CGHS facilities for the whole life on his retirement itself, not withstanding. The babus of his department with abnormally swelled egos take sadistic pleasure in retrenching the claimed amount on most flimsy grounds; feigning ignorance of the Delhi high court verdict that mandates full reimbursement of the expenditure incurred on the medical treatment, and that too after the claim is subjected to several absurd objections. The autonomous body pensioner-beneficiaries of CGHS have made several representations to the authorities of the Health Ministry including those to the Hon’ble Minister but all have fallen on deaf ears so far and the victims of this blatant discrimination continue to suffer in silence. Even ventilating the grievances through media could not yield any positive results for these unfortunate CGHS pensioner-beneficiaries whose only sin is that they had retired from autonomous bodies. It would thus be apparent that the denial of credit facility and cashless service by private recognized hospitals to the CSIR pensioners who are CGHS beneficiaries is a cruel, inhuman and heartless joke still being perpetuated on the hapless CSIR and other autonomous body pensioner-beneficiaries of CGHS even though their counterpart retirees from the government the government have been availing the facility for several years now.

As respected senior citizens of this country, all pensioners should be treated at par, particularly in the matter of healthcare and medical facilities. Age and the age alone should be the criterion to determine the priority in the matter of extending the benefits to a pensioner-beneficiary irrespective of the post and the grade he was in at the time of his retirement.

MEDIA-SHY JUDICIARY

March 11, 2007




Page: 33/36

Home > 2007 Issues > March 11, 2007

Debate Media-savvy judiciary good for consumer interest By Sanjog Maheshwari Thanks to the media-shyness of the judiciary, many cases, in which judicial pronouncements and decisions lay down principled and lawful guidelines for the government agencies to follow in all matters, never see the light of the day as the case files remain buried in the dusty confines of the courts’ record rooms. Way back in 2004, an NGO, Common-Cause, under the dynamic stewardship of its the then Director the late H.D. Shouri filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court contending that installation, maintenance, repair and replacement of water metres is the duty and the sole responsibility exclusively of the service provider in this case the government-owned Delhi Jal Board. However, millions of Delhi consumers aren’t any wiser about their right and the government-owned Delhi Jal Board continues to arm-twist the consumers to install, maintain and replace, as the case may be, the water metres privately at their own cost and responsibility otherwise they have to shell out consumptive charges at a presumptive average which is much higher than the actual average for the immediately preceding last one year consumption recorded by the DJB-installed metre. For the obvious reasons, given the choice, not a single consumer out of several millions would like to go for private installation of metre at his own cost and responsibility. While a DJB-installed metre lasts for many years, the life-span of a privately-installed metre does not usually average more than a year. More often than not it is pronounced ‘faulty’ or ‘defective’ much earlier and the poor consumer ends up paying highly inflated bills raised on the basis of presumptive average consumption until he chooses to again fall prey to the vicious circle of installation-replacement-installation of the privately-installed metre at frequent intervals which is far more bothersome and costly affair than paying the inflated bills. Though in all such cases the DJB logically and also legally should raise bills at the actual average for the preceding last one year consumption as recorded by its own metre when that was operating as decided in yet another such case—R.C. Maheshwari vs. DJB—Judgment delivered by the District Forum, Janakpuri on 15-01-02 and upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi State Consumer Commission who while upholding the learned Lower Court’s decision, dismissed the appeal of the DJB as unnecessary (vide their orders dated 14-02-2006 and 06-07-2006; appeal case no. 257/02). The case assumes significance and importance not only for its landmark decision but also for a noteworthy observation made in it by the Commission headed by Justice J.D.Kapoor, President. Delivering the judgment which was to be referred to the reporters also as per the Court’s direction, the Commission inter-alia, laid down the guidelines to be observed in all such cases also. In most unmistakable terms Justice Kapoor observed, “Any amount received in excess or towards metre by the service provider have to be refunded and cannot be allowed even by any provision of law to be adjusted towards future bills. Retention of such amount or its adjustment towards future bills has to be followed by payment of interest.” The landmark judgment apart, the case generates an interesting debate on the tariff-plan and billing of the domestic supply of water as distinct from the billing of its industrial and commercial supply. In the case of the former, the water is consumed by the ultimate consumer to whom the commodity is gifted by the Mother Nature in great abundance and as freely as its two other life-sustaining gifts—air and sunshine—and the service-providing agencies have no role, whatsoever, to play in its production and as such have no authority to commodify it. While they are entitled to levy the service charges at the flat rates for the treatment of water and bringing it to homes through piped supply for domestic use, they cannot levy consumptive charge. The life-sustaining gift of the Nature belongs to all the living beings. Its ownership indisputably vests with the people and the owner cannot be charged for consuming a commodity that belongs to him. The consumptive charge is, therefore, levy-able only in case of commercial or industrial use of water and certainly not on its domestic supply. The establishment cannot take an alibi in citing ‘scarcity’. The culprits responsible for creating this interminably torturous ‘scarcity amidst plenty” syndrome are gross mismanagement, rampant corruption, unplanned development and urbanization, burgeoning population and so forth; certainly not the people. However, the fiduciary responsibility of the government to protect and keep the water bodies and resources clean and in excellent condition all the time is not waived. The service-providing government agencies are very well aware of the fact that their services are miles behind the normal expectations of and otherwise much-tolerant and docile Indian consumer let alone the international standards. This awareness of the deplorable quality of their services makes them scary even before any measure for consumer-empowerment is hinted, let alone initiated. No wonder, they don’t want government to make them more accountable to consumers and resist any such move tooth and nail. Not only this, the establishment itself does not want expeditious disposal of such cases where a consumer is pitted against a government service-providing agency and they have many tricks up their sleeves to keep the consumer courts under a handicap. Even very simple cases go on dragging much after the judgment vindicating a consumer’s stand is delivered as it takes another long stretching legal battle before a common consumer can think of getting even a small slice of the reliefs granted. The gainful interaction between judiciary and media is likely to go a long way in alleviating the sufferings of hapless nobodies in their quest for justice.

Previous Page (32/36) - Next Page (34/36)

Content ©

copyright© 2004 Bharat Prakashan(Delhi) Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Designed and Hosted by GHENSoft