Latest news with #PraveenKumarJain
Time of India
01-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Ghaziabad hospital told to pay retired railway employee s 17k for claim process delay
Ghaziabad: District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) has directed the Northern Railways chief medical superintendent (CMS) to pay over Rs 17,000 to a retired railway employee — as reimbursement and compensation for claim delay. While payment of Rs 12,398 has been ordered as treatment reimbursement for cataract surgery, that of Rs 5,000 has been directed as the compensation for delaying the payment of the claim. The commission also directed the payment to be made within 45 days of the order, failing which interest calculated at 6% would have to be paid. You Can Also Check: Noida AQI | Weather in Noida | Bank Holidays in Noida | Public Holidays in Noida Passing the order on June 23, the commission, presided over by Praveen Kumar Jain, said railway authorities should have taken necessary steps to initiate payment instead of rejecting the claim on the grounds of incomplete papers "when the claimant is a retired employee of the railways". Devilal Singh, who superannuated from the post of chief medical superintendent (CMS) in 2012, had filed an application before the DCDRC for direction to CMS, Delhi divisional office and assistant chief medical superintendent (ACMS) of Railway Hospital Ghaziabad. The complainant said during retirement, he was provided with a medical card covering him and his family members. He told the commission, "When I felt some problem with my right eye, I consulted the doctors at JP Hospital, Noida, and underwent a surgery on April 10, 2019, for which I paid Rs 35,890. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn IC Markets Đăng ký Undo Once again, I had some issues with my right eye and was advised by doctors at JP Hospital to undergo a cataract surgery, which was conducted on Oct 1, 2019. This time, I paid Rs 30,500 towards the bills raised by the hospital. When I applied for reimbursement of the treatment cost with ACMS (Railway Hospital Ghaziabad) with all relevant documents, it was rejected, which was not just a deficiency in services but also illegal. " The complainant later filed an RTI application and was informed by the railways that his first claim of Rs 35,890 was settled by the railway department by paying Rs 1,786, as was admissible under the policy of Central Govt Health Service (CGHS). The complainant contended that since he was an employee of the railway, his claims could not be dealt with under the CGHS policy and were governed by the railway board. The counsel for the opponents said that railway authorities follow the railway board policy of 2005, effective since Jan 2007, under which beneficiaries can obtain treatment at hospitals recognised by the railways. "The beneficiaries are free to obtain treatment at any hospital of their choice, but in that case, reimbursement is done according to CGHS rates as applicable," the counsel said. He told the commission the second claim was rejected for inadequacy of documents. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Doctor's Day 2025 , messages and quotes!
Time of India
21-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Bank fails to stop fraud after timely plaint by Noida customer, fined Rs 3 lakh
Ghaziabad: The district consumer commission has ordered Bank of Baroda (BoB) to compensate a customer nearly Rs 3 lakh for failing to stop , despite the victim promptly informing the authorities that her phone — where she got all OTPs linked to her account — had been stolen. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Archana Singh, a resident of Avantika Colony, lost her mobile phone on Sept 22, 2021, leading to a series of unauthorised transactions totalling over Rs 11 lakh from her savings account. Within hours of losing her phone, she claimed to have filed a police complaint and alerted the bank about the suspicious transactions. The fraudulent transactions, which were used for purchases on Amazon, began with a minor sum of Rs 329 and escalated to two larger transactions of Rs 5.2 lakh and Rs 5.7 lakh the following day. Through prompt intervention with Amazon authorities, the bank managed to recover and return Rs 2.4 lakh on Sept 24 that year and Rs 5.7 lakh in three more days. However, Rs 2.8 lakh remained unrecovered, as the items purchased with the amount had already been dispatched to an unauthorised user. During the hearing at the consumer forum, Amazon Retail presented its legal position and denied any responsibility for the purchases, but Bank of Baroda failed to appear or submit any written response, displaying lack of accountability. The commission, presided over by Praveen Kumar Jain, based its judgment on a Supreme Court ruling in the case of State Bank of India vs Pallabh Bhaumik and others, which establishes that banks are liable for unauthorised transactions when they are reported within the stipulated timeframe. The decision was further supported by RBI guidelines issued on July 6, 2017, which make it mandatory for banks to take responsibility for illegal transactions reported within three days. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now "The RBI guidelines issued in 2017 clearly state that it is the responsibility of banks for all unauthorised transactions if informed within three days," the order mentions. Taking a stern view of the absence of bank representatives during proceedings, the commission ordered BoB to reimburse the outstanding amount of Rs 2,8 lakh and imposed an additional penalty of Rs 5,000 for litigation costs and mental agony caused to the customer.
Time of India
19-05-2025
- Time of India
Travel club fails to book Maharashtra trip, consumer forum asks it to refund Rs 1.6 lakh
Ghaziabad: The district consumer disputes redressal commission (DCDRC) imposed a fine of Rs 5,000 on a travel agency for not providing the services as demanded by the customer. It also directed the company to refund the full sum of Rs 1.6 lakh taken from the customer as membership fee in Jan 2022. DCDRC president Praveen Kumar Jain and member Shailja Sachan heard the matter ex parte and passed the order to pay the money within 45 days with a simple interest of 6% from May 14, the date of the order, until the last payment is made. Petitioners Shrishti Gupta and her husband Ankit Gupta, both residents of Vasundhara City, had sought membership of Tag Vacation Club in Jan 2022, after paying a membership fee of Rs 1.4 lakh and a total amount of Rs 1,65,358. The couple told the forum that they were promised that the club would arrange holiday packages across the country. "In Sept 2023, we requested a holiday package for pilgrimage sites in Maharashtra, which included places like Elephanta Caves, Nasik Shirdi, Trayambakeshwar, Shani Shignapur, Ajanta and Ellora Caves, Girishneshwar Jyotirlinga, and Parli Baijnath, but the club informed us that they do not have any resort in Mumbai and can offer us packages to other destinations," they alleged. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Switch to UnionBank Rewards Card UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo The customers approached the club on later dates, requesting arrangements for the Maharashtra tour they planned, to no avail, following which they raised a demand for returning the membership fee. In the absence of a written reply or representation through an authorised representative, the commission found the evidence produced by the petitioners sufficient to hold the club guilty of 'denying services' to the customer and charged a fine of Rs 5,000 for the mental agony caused, over and above the direction to return the money taken for membership.
Time of India
05-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Consumer forum fines Mumbai firm Rs 5,000 for denying service
Ghaziabad: The district consumer disputes redressal commission (DCDRC) fined a Mumbai-based beauty and healthcare firm Rs 5,000 for denying services to a customer. It also asked the firm to return the entire amount taken from the customer, along with 6% interest, within 45 days. The commission, comprising chair Praveen Kumar Jain and member Shailja Sachan, was hearing a petition by Ghaziabad resident Birendra Kumar Singh, who sought action against Richfeel Health and Beauty Private Limited , Mumbai, and its franchisee, Blue Tera Spa, Ghaziabad, represented by Vishal Tyagi and Ankita Rastogi, for denying him treatment for which he had made an advance payment of Rs 21,475 in July 2020. He had filed a complaint on Jan 17, 2024. You Can Also Check: Noida AQI | Weather in Noida | Bank Holidays in Noida | Public Holidays in Noida The commission passed an ex-parte order dated May 2, 2025, in the absence of a response from the respondent. It observed that since the payment was received by the Mumbai-based firm, against which it issued a receipt, the onus of providing service rested on them. Accordingly, the franchisee, Blue Tera Spa, had no role to play. tnn by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 9-Sekunden-Methode lässt Nagelpilz keine Chance Heilratgeber Weiterlesen Undo Ghaziabad: The district consumer disputes redressal commission (DCDRC) fined a Mumbai-based beauty and healthcare firm Rs 5,000 for denying services to a customer. It also asked the firm to return the entire amount taken from the customer, along with 6% interest, within 45 days. The commission, comprising chair Praveen Kumar Jain and member Shailja Sachan, was hearing a petition by Ghaziabad resident Birendra Kumar Singh, who sought action against Richfeel Health and Beauty Private Limited, Mumbai, and its franchisee, Blue Tera Spa, Ghaziabad, represented by Vishal Tyagi and Ankita Rastogi, for denying him treatment for which he had made an advance payment of Rs 21,475 in July 2020. He had filed a complaint on Jan 17, 2024. The commission passed an ex-parte order dated May 2, 2025, in the absence of a response from the respondent. It observed that since the payment was received by the Mumbai-based firm, against which it issued a receipt, the onus of providing service rested on them. Accordingly, the franchisee, Blue Tera Spa, had no role to play. tnn
