DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

          Complaint Case No.: 116 of 2009

 Date of Inst:23.01.2009

                Date of Decision:07.04.2010

Vineet Krishan s/o Sh.Ravinder Krishan r/o H.No.306, Sector-9, Chandigarh.

              ---Complainant

V E R S U S

1.   ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Zenith House, Keshavrao Khadye Marg, Opposite Race Course, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400034 through its Managing Director-cum-CEO.

2.   ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.24-25, Ist Floor, Sector 8,Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160009 through its Branch Manager.

3.   International SOS Service (India) Private Limited 2-B, Second Floor, Lotus Tower, New Friends Colony Community Centre, New Delhi through its Managing Director.

---Opposite Parties

QUORUM        SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA         PRESIDENT

              SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI      MEMBER

              SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA            MEMBER

PRESENT:      Sh.Aseem Rai, Adv. for complainants

Sh.Mrigank Sharma, Adv. for OPs No.1 and 2.

OP-3 exparte. 

                            ---

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

          Sh.Vineet Krishan  has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed  to :-

i)                   Pay a sum of Rs.2 lacs as damages for immense agony and hardship faced by him and his family members.

ii)              Pay a sum of Rs.15000/- as litigation expenses.

          In brief the case of the complainant is that he along with his family members were to travel Australia in the month of May-June 2008 and therefore, he purchased four separate Overseas Travel Policies for himself, his wife and two sons.  The complainant was issued insurance policy No.4030/2727029/00/000 under plan Gold X-100 which was valid from 17.05.2008 to 06.06.2008 midnight (single trip) or actual date of arrival which ever was earlier.  As per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the complainant was to be provided $300 (Australia) in case of financial emergency. Accordingly, the complainant along with his wife and sons went to Australia. On 24.05.2008 at about 6.40 p.m., he along with his family members was to visit Melborne City in Australia and for that purpose they boarded a tram at Street Boruke. When they got off the tram, the complainant found that his wallet was stolen from his pocket. The said wallet was containing the following items:-

i)              Three Visa Credit cards in the name of the  complainant Vineet Krishan issued by Standard Chartered Bank.

ii)         Two Credit Cards and one debit card in the name of Mrs.Naini Krishan wife of the complainant issued by ICICI Bank.

iii)    Cash equal to 1500/- Australian Dollars.

iv)         Driving licence of Vineet Krishan, complainant.

v)              Membership card of Golf Club, Chandigarh and Chandigarh Club Ltd.

          The complainant lodged the report (Annexure C-2) at Police Station of Melborune East. After the loss of his wallet, the complainant informed OP-1 about it and requested to take necessary steps for blocking/freezing the credit cards.  According to the complainant, he and his family members suffered immense emotional and mental distress and difficulties due to loss of wallet.  Rather, it became very difficult for them to proceed with their tour without money.   The complainant found it very difficult to send even the documents and enter into correspondence to get necessary response and action initiated for lack of money. The complainant and his family members somehow managed to reach Hobart from where they were to undertake their journey back to India. The complainant informed the financial emergency faced by him and his family members to OP-3. Thereafter, the OPs No.1 and 2 provided the covered amount of 300+10 Aus.$300 equivalent to $300 (Australia). However, the claim of his wife and sons namely Ishan Krishan and Ayush Krishan was declined by OPs on flimsy grounds, which amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

2.        In the reply filed by OPs No.1 and 2, the factum of issuance of the insurance policy in question to the complainant has been admitted. It has been admitted that the wallet of the complainant has been lost in Australia during his trip.  It has been pleaded that different polices were taken by different individual in their individual capacities. According to OPs, as the complainant lost his wallet, therefore, he was provided with Aus $300 coverage as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Mrs.Naini Krishan, the wife of the complainant and her kids also applied for claim reimbursement on behalf of the wallet lost by the complainant. The same was repudiated as no loss had occurred to them. In these circumstances, according to OPs No.1 and 2, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal.

3.        OP-3 was duly served but nobody appeared on its behalf either in person or through counsel. Therefore, it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 23.04.2009.

4.        We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 

5.        As per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the complainant was to get $300 (Australia) as financial assistance in case of financial emergency. Admittedly, the financial assistance of $300 (Australia) was provided to the complainant while he was in Australia. In these circumstances, the complainant can have no grievance against OPs for not providing financial assistance to him. The fact that financial assistance was not given to his wife and sons does not give any cause of action to the complainant to file the present complaint. They have their own independent right to file the claim, if any, with OPs. The complainant cannot be compensated for refusal to grant any claim to other policyholders.

6.        In view of the above circumstances, the complainant has failed to make out any case of deficiency in service against OPs. Hence, this complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

7.        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

07.04.2010

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Cm                                                 sd/-

(ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER