Chandigarh Consumer Commission Pulls Up Punjab Govt for Denying Full Medical Reimbursement to Retired DDA

March 16, 2026 : The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh has held Punjab Government authorities guilty of deficiency in service for arbitrarily restricting medical reimbursement of a retired Deputy District Attorney, Ajaib Singh, without proving that he had been informed of the applicable policy conditions.

As per the order dated 16 March 2026, the Commission partly allowed the consumer complaint and directed the authorities to pay the balance amount of ₹2,90,201 along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, along with ₹20,000 as compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.

The complainant, a retired Deputy District Attorney, was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2018 and underwent treatment at Fortis Hospital, Mohali between 08 October 2018 and 24 December 2018. He incurred medical expenses amounting to ₹4,01,951 and submitted all requisite documents for reimbursement. However, the authorities sanctioned only ₹1,11,750 through an order dated 22 January 2021, prompting him to approach the Commission alleging deficiency in service.

The opposite parties contended that the reimbursement was processed strictly in accordance with the Punjab Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1940 and applicable government-approved package rates. They also relied on an affidavit furnished by the complainant, stating that he had agreed to accept reimbursement as per prescribed rates.

However, the Commission found no material on record to establish that the detailed policy terms, including package rates, were ever supplied or explained to the complainant. It held that mere submission of an affidavit or standard undertaking does not amount to informed consent unless it is shown that the contents and implications were properly communicated and accepted.

The Commission further noted that the complainant had undergone treatment for a serious illness and the expenses incurred were supported by genuine and undisputed bills. In such circumstances, restricting reimbursement without ensuring that the complainant was aware of the limiting conditions was held to be arbitrary.

Concluding that the authorities failed to prove informed consent and acted in violation of fair procedure, the Commission held their conduct to be deficiency in service and granted relief to the complainant.

Case Title: Ajaib Singh v. Director Prosecution and Litigation & Ors.
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. DC/AB1/44/CC/529/2021
Coram: Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B.M. Sharma (Member)