Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/277/2019

Satpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Arun Kumar Adv.

01 Aug 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	277/2019
Date of Institution	:	03.05.2019
Date of Decision	:	01.08.2019

 

                                       

                                               

Satpal Singh aged 55 years son of Sh.Mann Singh r/o H.No.256, Dashmesh Colony, Zirakpur, Punjab.  

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

 

1. HDFC Bank, Plot No.28, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.
2. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd., Plot No.28, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.
3. The Branch Manager, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd., Plot No.28, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:

 

SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

 

Sh.Varun Bhardwaj, Adv. for the complainant

                OPs exparte.

 

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         The facts of the case as alleged by the complainant are that he purchased a car for a sum of Rs.5,25,765/- by availing loan to the tune of Rs.2,04,598/- from OP No.1.   It has further been averred that OPs No.2 and 3 also charged a sum of Rs.4598/- towards issuing Sarv Suraksha Plus Policy valid from 16.01.2018 to 15.01.2021 vide Health Insurance Policy Reference No.2950202063716400000 and he was covered under various medical benefits including critical illness.  On 04.05.2018, he suffered a brain stroke and rushed to J.P. Diagnostics, Zirakpur from where he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh where doctors gave him only one injection and no other treatment was provided. Being dissatisfied, he approached Alchemist Hospital, Panchkula  who charged a huge amount but there was no recovery in his health and as such he was again shifted to PGIMER, Chandigarh.  The intimation regarding the treatment was given to OPs No.2 and 3 and he also submitted various documents for reimbursement of the claim but they repudiated the same vide letter dated 19.12.2018 on the ground that the complainant was suffering from pre-existing disease.  It has further been asserted that OPs No.2 and 3 have not returned the original documents submitted at the time of filing the claim despite his repeated requests. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         Notices sent for the service of OPs No.1 and 2 were received back with the report of refusal. Since refusal was good service, and none appeared on behalf of OPs No.1 and 2 on the date fixed, therefore vide order dated 10.06.2019, they were proceeded against exparte. 
3.         Despite due service through registered post, OP No.3 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.06.2019.
4.         We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.
5.         In his evidence, the complainant has tendered into evidence his detailed affidavit in support of the averments made in the complaint along with the supporting documents as mentioned in the complaint. He had suffered brain stroke i.e. Right Basal Ganglia Bleed which generally occurs when a blood clot or narrowed arteries prevent sufficient blood flow through the blood vessels.  From the medical bill dated 05.05.2018 issued by Alchemist Hospital, Sector 21, Panchkula, it is evident that the complainant had incurred a sum of Rs.30,880/- upon his treatment.  
6.         There is no evidence on record from the side of OPs to show that the complainant was ever diagnosed or visited any hospital/ clinic/ doctor with the aforementioned diseases/ailments and was on regular medication.   It may be stated here that the averments made in the complaint and the evidence led by the complainant have gone un-rebutted and uncontroverted as the OPs have preferred to proceed exparte despite due service instead of refuting the allegations made in the complaint.  It is, thus, established beyond all reasonable doubt that the complaint of the complainant is genuine.  The OPs have committed deficiency in service as also indulged into unfair trade practice by repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant vide its letter dated 19.12.2018, resulting into immense, mental and physical harassment to him.   Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint.
7.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed against OPs No.2 and 3 and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs No.2 and 3 are directed as under:-

1. To return the original treatment record to the complainant.    
2. To refund back a sum of Rs.30,880/- to the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony & physical harassment suffered by the complainant;
4. To pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by OPs No.2 and 3 within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(ii) and (iii) above shall also carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till its actual payment besides compliance of other directions.

8.         The complaint qua OP No.1 stands dismissed.
9.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

01/08/2019                       

Sd/-

       (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)