Before the District Forum: Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Wednesday the 20th day of October, 2004
C.D.No.85/2004
C.Chandrasekhar Gupta,
S/o. C.Subramanyam,
R/o. D.No.25/187-A,
Sanjeeva Nagar,
Nandyal,
Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainant represented by his counsel
Sri J.Swamy Reddy.
-Vs-
1. Chairman & Managing Director,
Adala Raghava Reddy,
Medinova Diagnostic services ltd,
6-3-652, Kowtilya,
3rd floor, Somajiguda,
Hyderabad. . . . Opposite party
2.Basu Takur,
Director,
Medinova Diagnostic Services Ltd,
6-3-652, Kowtilya,
3rd floor,
Somajiguda,
Hyderabad. … Opposite party.
3. The Managing Director,
Medinova Diagnostic services Ltd,
Franchises M.S.R Hospitals (P)Ltd,
25/179 Station Road,
Nandyal. . . . Opposite party.
( As per Smt C.Preethi, Member)
O R D E R
1. This consumer dispute case of the complainant is filed under section 12 of the C.P Act, seeking a direction on the opposite party for refund of the mature amount of Rs.7,850/- with interest at 18percent from 19.12.2002, Rs.2,500/- as compensation for the mental agony and suffering and suffering, Rs.2,500/- as costs and any such other relief which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant s case is that she has deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- with the opposite party on 20.12.1999 to 19.12.2002 for three years under membership deposit receipt bearing No. 1007/XIII and on its maturity 19.12.2002 the amount to be refunded to the depositor was Rs.7,850/-. After maturity the complainant send the said MDR to opposite party for refund of maturity amount, but the opposite party did not pay the said maturity amount inspite of several requests and demands. As the above conduct of the opposite party in not paying the maturity amount is amounting to deficieny of service to the complainant. Hence the complainant was constrained to file this complaint against the opposite party demanding the payment of the maturity value of Rs.7,850/- with over due interest. The above conduct of the opposite party in not refunding the amount and not keeping its commitments amounting to deficiency of service and driven the complainant to the Forum for redressal.
3. Inspite of receipt of the notice issued by this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party did not turn up to the proceedings by filing any written version in their defence and by their absence to the proceedings and remained exparte.
4. The complainant in substantiation of his case relied on the documentary evidence in Ex A.1 to E.A.3 besides to his sworn affidavit in reiteration of his complaint avernments.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the alleged deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties entitling him to the reliefs claimed?:-
6. The Ex A.1 xerox copy of the membership deposit receipt No. 01007/XIII envisages the deposit of Rs.5,000/- by the complainant with the opposite party on 20.12.1999 for a period of three years for the amount of Rs.7,850/- refundable on maturity. In the absence of any contra material there appears no material to doubt the bonafidies of the factum envisaged in Ex A.1.
7. The Ex A.2 the office copy of the letter dt 16.11.2001 of the complainant addressed to the opposite party says of his approach to the Nandyal franchise centre for carrying out certain clinical investigations under the Gold Card plus and its not honoring by the Nandyal franchise in providing entitled concessions under that Gold Card Plus scheme and his sending to the opposite party the concerned paid vouchers for arranging the re-imbursement of the difference of the concession amount to the opposite party it requests the opposite party further to advice the franchise the Nandyal and Anantapur to honor the gold card concessions to the members the complainant alleges the said Ex A.2 was not responded by the opposite party. In the absence of any contra material from the opposite parties there appears no material to dought the bonafidies of the said Ex A.2. The letter dt 25.4.2002 of the complainant to the opposite party not only the fact of not honoring the said Gold Card Plus concessions to him by the opposite party franchises Nandyal and Anantapur when he approached for certain diagnosis, but also revocation of the said Gold Card Plus deposit, in the said circumstances alleging there with the encloser of 1+3 membership cards, folders, brouchers, medical check up coupons said to have been received by him from the opposite party on 22.7.2001. The said Ex A.3 was said to have been acknowledged by the opposite party under Ex A.4. The complainant alleges there is no response from the opposite parties to this A.3 even.
8. The Ex A.5 is the letter dt 11.2.2003 addressed by the complainant to the opposite party it envisages the enclosure of duly discharged gold card receipt for arranging the early payment and in case of any delay requesting to inform Nandyal Franchise to allow gold card concessions in diagnostic services to the complainant and also his non-acceptance for bearer health check coupon issued for overdue interest and also requiring the opposite party to pay the principle amount of gold card membership No.08468/IX due on 5.8.2001 along with interest and over due interest. The said letter in Ex A.5 was said to have been acknowledged by the opposite party under Ex A.6. The complainant alleges the Ex A.5 was also not responded by the opposite party. Hence it constrained the complainant to cause legal notice under Ex A.7 to the opposite party incorporating all the matters occurred till then and demanding the payment of the due amount. The said notice in Ex A.7 was said to have been acknowledged by the opposite party vide Ex A.8. It is submitted by the complainant that the demand made in Ex A.7 even was not responded by the opposite party and hence constrained him to resort to the Forum for redressal. In the absence of any contra material from the opposite parties there appears no material to doubt the bonafidies of the said submission. The non-responsive conduct of the opposite party to the demands made under supra stated documents marked being without any justifiable excuses. The said conduct of the opposite party is amounting to deficiency of service of the opposite party in keeping up the commitments arising under the cards it issued under the schemes.
9. When a Company or Firm invites deposits on a promise of attractive rates of interest or attractive sums it is a service and the depositor is a consumer as per the decisions of the Hon ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissin, New Delhi in Neels Vasantha Raji Vs Among Industries reported in1993 (3) C.P.R page 345.
10. When the amount under the deposit with accrued benefit not released to the depositor by the financial institution, the said conduct of not honoring the said commitment amounts to deficiency and the financial institution is liable to refund the accrued amount with 12percent interest as per the decision of the Hon ble Maharastra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in Sanchyani savings and Investments (India) limited Vs Vastla Baba Saheb Gai Quard reported in I (2003) C.P.J page 260.
11. In the present case the earlier membership deposit receipt No.04879/XIIIR issued on 15.2.2000 on receipt of a deposit of Rs.5,000/- for a period of three years for refunding Rs.7,850/- on maturity was not continued as per its schedule to work out the entitleness of the complainant for that committed amount as the said M.D.R was converted to gold card plus scheme consequent to letter of the opposite party dt 31.3.2001 for a tenure of 5 years with a condition for non-refund of the deposit amount in view of the extended benefits and concessions to the member and his family members. The complainant has not placed any such material for which amount the Gold Card Plus was considered by the opposite party from the amount of the original deposit. If the privileges and concessions entitled under that scheme were honored by the franchise of the opposite party the complainant will not be entitled for refund of the amount covered under the Gold Card Plus as it was made known as non-refundable. When the said amount is not refundable it does not stipulate any further interest and of any maturity amount refundable to the complainant, but such contingency exists as long as the benefits and privileges and concessions in diagnostic services were extended to the members and his family during the period of 5 years. Even though there is no stipulation for the refund f the said amount as the non-refund of the said amount was made in that scheme in view of the extended benefits the said condition of the non-refund remains good as long as those services due there under are extended to the member and his beneficiaries. Hence, it remains without any further says in case of breech of keeping up said commitments in its naturality the member who was deprived of the said extended benefits, privileges and concessions would automatically will be entitled to the said non-refundable amounts. Even though there are no particulars from the complainant s side as to the said non-refundable amount as the said conversion from to the Gold Card Plus scheme being within a short time of the original medinova card membership the amount coverable under the said Gold Card Plus shall not be more than the original deposit amount of Rs.5,000/-. Hence, the complainant is remaining entitled to the said amount of Rs.5,000/- as he was refused of privileges and concessions by the Nandyal franchise of the opposite party. As the opposite parties by their non-responsive conduct appears to have caused mental agony and suffering to the complainant and ultimately led the complainant to the Forum for redressal of his grievances the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and suffering and Rs.1,000/- as costs.
12. Therefore, in the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- with interest at 12percent per annum from 16.11.2001 along with Rs.2,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and suffering and Rs.1,000/- as costs within a month of the receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the dictation, corrected by us, pronounced in the Open Court this the 20th day of October, 2004.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
