Haryana

StateCommission

A/685/2015

RITESH GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

INSTANT HEALTH CARE PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

ANIL SHUKLA

07 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                    

                                                First Appeal No.           685 of 2015

                                                Date of Institution:       19.08.2015

                                                Date of Decision:         07.04.2016

 

Ritesh Gupta son of late Sh. Ravinder Gupta, resident of House No.3D/48A, B.P. NIT, Faridabad – 121001.

                             Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Instant Health Care Private Limited, 1107, New Delhi House, Barakhamba Road, Delhi -110 001 through its Principal Officer (Now as M/s E-Meditek Solutions Limited, Plot No.577, Udyog Vihar, Phase V, Gurgaon – 122001).

 

2.      M/s Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited, Office of the Insurance Ombudsman, 2/2A,Universal Insurance Building, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi -110 002, through its Principal Officer, C/o Branch Manager, Branch Office at 2^nd Floor, SCO 33, Sector 16, Faridabad – 121002 (Haryana).

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.                       

 

Present:              None for the appellant.

                             Mr. Rohit Goswami, Advocate for M/s E-Meditek Solutions Limited

                             None for the respondent No.2

                             (Service upon respondent No.2 already effected vide order dated 12.01.2016)

                            

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

The instant appeal has been filed by Ritesh Gupta-complainant (appellant) against the order dated July 13^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short ‘District Forum’).  For ready reference, operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“13)   Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till realization of amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order to the complainant.  Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.5500/- as compensation towards mental agony, harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant….”  

 

2.      Ritesh Gupta-complainant purchased Mediclaim Family Floater Policy from the respondents.  The policy covered complainant, his wife Ruchi Gupta and daughter Radhika Gupta.  On August 07^th, 2010, Ruchi Gupta developed certain gynecological problem.  She remained admitted in Asian Institute of Medical Sciences, Faridabad for three days and discharged on August 09^th, 2010.  The complainant spent Rs.20,000/- on the treatment of his wife.  He submitted claim with Instant Health Care Private Limited-respondent No.1 but it was repudiated on the ground that voluntary termination of pregnancy during the first twelve weeks from the date of conception was not covered.

3.      Respondent No.1 was proceeded ex parte before the District Forum.

4.      Respondent No.2 in its reply pleaded that respondent No.2 had an agreement with respondent No.1 to whom respondent No.2 had issued Group Medi-Claim Insurance Policy providing cover to the members of respondent No.1.  The complainant obtained the insurance cover only through the respondent No.1 and therefore, he could not claim independent and betters rights than respondent No.1 under Contract of Insurance.  

 

5.      Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, the complainant has come up in appeal for modification of impugned order.

6.      The only plea taken by the complainant is that the impugned order be modified to the extent that the respondents No.1 & 2 be jointly and severally ordered to be liable to pay the awarded amount.

7.      The impugned order was passed against respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 was exonerated by the District Forum.  Respondent No.1 has not filed any appeal against the impugned order fastening liability upon it. Thus as a matter of fact, respondent No.1 does not dispute its liability to meet the order. No case for interference in the impugned order is made out. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

  

Announced 07.04.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

UK