Haryana

Kurukshetra

12/2017

Arvind Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Allahabad Bank - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.Gupta

23 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.12 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 16.01.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:23.05.2018.

Arvind Kumar son of Sh. Som Parkash, r/o House No.126, Ward no.4, Mahadev Mohalla, Kurukshetra, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Allahabad Bank, Sector-13 Market, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra through its Manager.
2. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., Sector-6, Urban Estate, Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

 

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. R.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. R.K.Singhal, Advocate for the OP.No.1.

                Sh. Atul Mittal, Adv. for Op No.2. 

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Arvind Kumar against Allahabad Bank and another, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant obtained family medical policy bearing No.2827/55108825/01/000 on 20.05.2016 from the Op No.2 through Op No.1, which was valid w.e.f. 16.05.2016 to 15.05.2017.  It is alleged unfortunately, the son of complainant namely Nilesh Gupta fell ill and he was suffering from high grade fever and lateron confirmed as Typhoid and he was admitted in Radhakishan Children Hospital, Kurukshetra from 06.07.2016 to 20.07.2016 and spent an amount of Rs.42,812/- on treatment and medicines etc.  It is further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the Op No.2 and submitted all the necessary documents, as required by them but the Op No.2 did not settle the claim of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to pay Rs.42,812/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and further to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges. 

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their replies separately.  Op No.1 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that the complainant is having a bank account with the answering Op and the complainant purchased the insurance policy from the Op No.2 on his own and had paid the premium of the same through his bank account.  The complainant had impleaded the answering Op intentionally in order to create the jurisdiction at Kurukshetra; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Op No.2 filed the reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the policy of insurance was issued from Mumbai where the Op is having its office; that the relevant documents are asked for on the basis of which the admissibility of the claim is decided.  The Op had written several letters with reminders vide letters dt. 18.09.2016, 30.09.2016 and even after these reminders, the required documents were not provided by the insured.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Both the parties have led their respective evidence to prove their version.

5.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant obtained family medical policy bearing No.2827/55108825/01/000 on 20.05.2016 from the Op No.2 through Op No.1, which was valid w.e.f. 16.05.2016 to 15.05.2017.  The main dispute between the parties is that according to complainant, he incurred an amount of Rs.42,812/- on the treatment of his son but the Op No.2 did not settle the claim of complainant.  Whereas as per Op No.2, the complainant did not submit the required documents despite issuance of several letters.  In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice will be met if the complainant is directed to deposit the required documents with the Op No.2 within one month from the date of order and thereafter, Op No.2 will decide the claim of complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of documents.

7.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, the complaint of complainant is disposed of accordingly and we direct the complainant to deposit the required documents with the Op No.2 within one month and thereafter, the Op No.2 will decide the claim of complainant within 15 days on receipt of documents by the Op No.2 from the complainant.  A copy of said order; be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:23.05.2018.  

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member