West Bengal

Nadia

CC/54/2021

PRASANTA GHOSH - Complainant(s)

Versus

BRANCH MANAGER ,THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD - Opp.Party(s)

MAKBUL RAHAMAN

07 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NADIA
170,DON BOSCO ROAD, AUSTIN MEMORIAL BUILDING.
NADIA, KRISHNAGAR
 
Complaint Case No. CC/54/2021
( Date of Filing : 07 Jul 2021 )
 
1. PRASANTA GHOSH
VILL RADHANAGAR GHOSH PARA & P.O. KRISHNAGAR P.S.- KOTWALI, NADIA, PIN- 741103
NADIA
WEST BENGAL
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. BRANCH MANAGER ,THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD
KRISHNAGAR BRANCH P.O.- KRISHNAGAR, P.S.- KOTWALI NADIA, PIN- 741101
NADIA
WEST BENGAL
2. MANAGER, HERITAGE HEALTH INSURANCE TPA PVT. LTD.
5TH FLOOR, NICCO HOUSE, 2, HARE ST., B.B.D. BAGH, KOL- 700 001
KOLKATA
WEST BENGAL
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY MEMBER
 
PRESENT:MAKBUL RAHAMAN, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 
Dated : 07 Aug 2023
Final Order / Judgement

Ld. Advocate(s)

For Complainant:  Makbul Rahaman

For OP/OPs : Avijit Gope

 

Date of filing of the case    :07.07.2021

Date of Disposal  of the case :  07.08.2023

 

Final Order / Judgment dtd.  07.08.2023

 

Complainant above name filed the present complaint u/s 35 Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the aforesaid OPs praying for direction to pay Rs. 41,194/-, interest @ 10 % per annum over the said amount,  compensation amounting to  Rs. 20,000/- cost of the case and other reliefs.

  He alleged  in the petition of complaint the he purchased one medi claim policy form OP  no.1 with the premium of Rs. 25,735/- for the period from 28.03.2019 to 27.03.2020. During continuance of aforesaid policy complainant was admitted   at Narayana Hrudayalaya Pvt, Ltd. on 21.12.2019 and he was discharged on 23.12.2019. Aforesaid hospital authority claimed bill of Rs. 67,000/- but OP no. 1 approved Rs. 66,400/-. As train ticket was purchased  earlier complainant compelled to start return  journey in the night  of 23.12.2019 and he failed  to take benefit of cashless facilities. He paid entire amount before aforesaid Nursing Home.

 After returning to his house he submitted entire bill before the OP  no. 1 but he allowed  Rs. 25,206 and transferred the said amount in his Bank  Account  through NEET.

 Complainant prays for remaining amount of Rs. 41,195/- .

 OP no. 1 contests the case by filing a W/V. He denied the entire allegation of the petition of complaint and further stated that OP no. 1 after maintaining the norms and exclusion cause already paid the justified  claim amount.  He further contended that there is no deficiency  in service on the part of the OP no. 1.

TRIAL

 

During trial complainant filed affidavit-in-chief.  OP no. 1 filed questionnaire. Complainant filed answer.  OP no.1 filed affidavit-in-chief. Complainant filed questionnaire. OP no. 1 filed answer.

DOCUMENTS

         Complainant produced the  following documents:

1 .Copy of policy of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd ( original  4 sheet) annexure  :1)

2.  Copy of discharge summary  dtd. 23.12.2019.(  annexure  : 2)

3.Copy of report of Central Nervous System dtd. 21.12.2019 (  13 sheet Xerox annexure: 3)

4.copy of report of NH Mazumdar Shaw Medical Centre dtd. 19.12.2019   ( 13 sheet Xerox annexure : 4)
5. Copy of receipt of NH Mazumdar Shaw Medical Centre dtd. 21.12.2019 ( 2 sheet annexure:5)

6. Copy of Claim form part B (  one sheet Xerox annexure :6).

7. Copy of query detain ( two sheet Xerox annexure: 7).

 

BNA

         Complainant filed BNA. OP no.1 filed BNA.

DECISION WITH REASONS

We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint filed by the complainant,  W/V filed  by OP no. 1, evidence of complainant, evidence filed by the OP no. 1, documents filed by the complainant, BNA filed by the complainant BNA filed by the OP no. 1.

 We have carefully gone through the aforesaid documents we find that the complainant corroborated the allegation of petition of complainant. We also find that complainant stated that he purchased one mediclaim policy issued by OP no. 1 and said policy was validated for the period from 28.03.2019 to 27.03.2020.

 On perusal of the aforesaid policy we find that OP no. 1 issued the said policy on 15.03.2019 and said policy was validated for the period from 28.03.2019 to 27.03.2020.

 Complainant   Further stated in the affidavit-in-chief  that he got admission before the  Narayana Hrudayalaya Pvt, Ltd on 21.12.2019 .

 On perusal of the documents   issued by the  Narayana Hrudayalaya Pvt, Ltd we find that complainant was admitted before the said hospital  and he continued treatment there as indoor patience. We find that OP  no. 1 approved the cost of treatment as cashless facility amounting to Rs. 66,400/-.

 On perusal of the Medi Claim policy filed by the complainant  we find that the complainant paid Rs. 50,000/- before the said hospital on 21.12.2019 and he also paid Rs. 17,000/- on 21.12.2019 and he also paid Rs. 500/- on 19.12.2019 complainant  also filed consolidated bill amounting to Rs. 55,403/-.

  As OP no. 1 approved the amount of Rs. 67,000/- relating to cost of  treatment of the complainant during his stay  at aforesaid hospital , so OP  no. 1  cannot go against the aforesaid  approved amount by any means.

Ld. Adv for the OP no. 1 cited a decision reported in 2013 (3)CPJ 559.

 On perusal of the said decision we find that the fact of the said case is totally different.

Accordingly, we find that said decision is not applicable in the present case.

 He also cited another decision reported in 2009 (3) CPJ 158.

 On perusal of the said decision we find that fact of the said case is also different.

Accordingly, we find that said decision is not applicable in the present case.

 On perusal of the record we find the complainant is the consumer and OP no. 1 is service provider.

Having regard to the aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that complainant has able to establish his grievance by sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubts.

 Accordingly, we find that complainant   is entitled to relief as per prayer.

 In view of the aforesaid discussion complainant entitled to  Rs. 55,403/-( fifty thousand four hundred three)  from the OP no. 1 and 2  which he paid to the said Hospital.  We also find from  the record that OP no. 1 and 2  already paid Rs. 25,200/- in favour of the complainant. So as per prayer of the complainant he is entitled to Rs. 55,403/- - Rs25,200/- = Rs,30,203/-.

In the result present case succeeds.

Hence,

 

It is            

                                       Ordered

that the present case be and the same is allowed against OP  no. 1 and allowed   ex-parte against OP no. 2 with cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by OP no. 1  in favour of the complainant.

 OP no. 1 and 2 jointly or severally are directed to   pay Rs. 30,203/-( thirty thousand two hundred three) in favour of the  complainant within  45 days from this date  failing which aforesaid amount shall carry interest  @ 9 % per annum  from this date to till the date of actual payment and complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.

 Considering the facts and circumstance of this case no order is passed as compensation in favour of the complainant.

Let a copy of this order be supplied to both the parties as free of cost.

Dictated & corrected by me

 

              ............................................

                                   PRESIDENT

 (Shri   DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS,)                       .................................................

                                                                                                                 PRESIDENT

                                                                                         (Shri   DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS,)       

            I concur,

 

             ........................................                                                                                    

                       MEMBER                                                                                                                                                                                           

 (NIROD  BARAN   ROY  CHOWDHURY)                                     

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.