Bihar

Muzaffarpur

CC/46/2010

Sri Suresh Kumar Gupta, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager, Bajaj Allianz, General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Amar Nath

11 Jan 2016

ORDER

                                                    District Consumer Forum, Muzaffarpur

          Complain Case No. –46/2010

  Sri – Suresh Kumar Gupta, aged 39 Years, S/o Late- Shyam Chandra  Sah, Mohalla- Bhagawanpurchatati P.S – Sadar, District-Muzaffarpur … …………………………………………………………………………………Complainants 

V/s

1. Manager, Bajaj Allianz, General Insurance Company Limited, Aghoriya Bazar , Muzaffarpur.
2.  Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Chhoti Saraiyagang, Muzaffarpur…………………………………………………opposite parties.

Date of order- 11-01-2016

                                                                                                  Present.

1. Shri Govind Prasad Singh

                                                                                                                        President,

       Consumer Forum Muzaffarpur

2.  Smt. Archana Singh

      Member

       Consumer Forum Muzaffarpur

For complainants-    Sri Amarnath   -advocate

For opposite party-  Sri Ravi ranjan ,Vinay Kumar Singh, Dayanand Singh,  Mr.

    Prasant Kumar, Mr. Om Prakash Suman – advocates

Order

           

            The complainant has filed this case of his claim on 03-04-2010  for Rs. 50,000/- for his treatment after denial of opposite party no.1 invested in treatment in another  hospital he has further claim of Rs. 10,000/- for discrepancy as well as damages and has also prayed to stop the withdraw of amount from closed policy.

            The case of complainant appears from his complaint petition supported with an affidavit  alleged there in that he has got open the credit card of HDFC Bank opposite party no.2 bearing no. 4346786000465889 which was valid from Januanry 2009 till 2012 he has further alleged after certain days opening the credit card both the opposite party connived and have mentioned the mob. No. of complainant, latter on  both the opposite party have informed him that the bank has launched  new scheme of medical insurance at the monthly installment of Rs. 941/- and the company will give him to medical cards in his name and other is in the name of his wife on which both can get treatment  without  payment in any corner of India,  as such he has given his address at Mob To opposite party no.1 accordingly they have transferred the policy premium from his account and latter on send the medical papers and had never taken any signature on any paper of both of them. Unfortunately after certain days complainant started suffering from storage of water in his chest and swollen as such  as per the card and prospectus he came  to Magadh medical college and hospital and other hospitals for his treatment  but both have refused to treat him according  he informed the opposite party and requested to close his policy. He has further alleged that both opposite party have deducted Rs. 5501 from his account without giving any information to the complainant and noticed him for deposited of said money. After receipt of notice he became astronished that how they have debited the amount from his account without his consent and without taking his signature. He has acknowledged the opposite party no.-1 that  he got closed his policy very prayer because they have neglected in service to him as the hospital has refused to treat him and he get his treatment from other hospital. He has further alleged that opposite party no.-2 on 16-02-2010 has again deducted Rs. 6272/- from his credit card and acknowledged him through notice for deposit accordingly both the opposite party have made discrepancy as such he has filed this case with aforesaid prayer.

            Complainant has filed Xerox copy of credit card not properly visible, policy paper dated 21-03-2000 having expiry dated 18-03-2011 in the name of complainant, Certificate for the purchase  of deduction u/s 80-D of in com tax  towards premium for health insurance for the period from 19-03-2009 to 18-03-2011 for Rs. 9391/- health card policy document. Health card of complainant, notice dated 22-10-2009 to the complainant, Statement of account  dated 13-11-2009, another statement informing the complainant that his  card account has been permanently suspended and demanded  to pay the entire dues dated 16-02-2010, Drs. Prescriptions dated 05-02-2010, 16-12-2009 with E.C.G 24-09-2009, 12-08-2009, 15-06-2009 report dated  24-06-2009 of SRL  and   test report dated 21-06-2009 which are annexure 1 to 14.

             In this case opposite party no.1 appeared and has filed his written statement supported with an affidavit on 11-04-2012 alleged there in that   the entire allegation of complainant is imaginary, concocted, and just to harass the opposite parties for the unlawful gain. He has denied the allegation of connivance. He has further alleged that the company has never forwarded and health policy to the claimant if any there on record based by the complainant it requires investigation by the investing agency the complainant is not disclosing the name of person who talked on behalf of company of opposite party no.1 as well as number of cell phone has been mentioned. The opposite party no.1 has no manner in respect  to the various deduction of  amount for the  credit card of the claimant even it is true  relates to the opposite party no.2 There is nothing  on record to show anything as to the breach of condition on the part of opposite party no.1.  The hole statement made in the claim petition an incorrect and misconceive and no case of deficiency in service is made out against the opposite party no.1 and on this basis he has prayed to dismiss the case.

            In this case opposite party no.2 also appeared and has filed written statement supported with an affidavit alleging there in that the law is well settled that where relationship of parties is that of debtor and creditor as in the instant case the Consumer Protection Act does not and cannot apply and the forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain, try or determine the above complaint. The complainant has filed his petition with malafide intention of unlawful gain . He has further alleged that the actual fact of the case is that the complainant had approaches the opposite party for issuance of credit card that he would duly repay his dues under such credit card without any delay , demure, objection or protest accordingly he issued  the credit card in his favour. The said card is governed by card member rule and regulation which is annexed as annexure A. The complainant has failed and  negligent to make payment of dues under aforesaid credit card despite regular issuance of statement of  a sum Rs. 8,162.93/-is due and payable by the complainant to the opposite party bank. Full particulars of such dues are furnished  in the statements of account. He has further alleged that clearly it is an attempt to avoid making payment of his substantial dues by filing the present case knowing full well. He has further alleged that it is relevant to say that the answering opposite party had issued credit card in favour of complainant with the consent of complainant latter on he had purchased a health insurance policy    from opposite party no.1 and adopted to make payment of premium through credit card in question. In pursuance their of, payment of premium of policy were made through the said credit card ,it is further relevant to say that this opposite party never received any complaint or request from the complainant for not to pay any further premium of the policy in question, there is huge outstanding against the complainant  and to avoid the payment he has filed this false and fabricated case against the opposite parties. It is admitted by the complainant that as per his request amount of premium were paid from his credit card and on the aforesaid basis he has prayed to dismiss with exemplary cost.

             The complainant has filed his written argument dated 28-12-2013 mentioning the same fact as alleged in his complaint petition only the new fact in his prayer appears that he has invested Rs. 1,75,000/- in his treatment which he has claimed  with another Rs. 10,000/- of litigation cost.

            The complainant has further submitted  affidavit of his witnesses namely Kiran Devi wife of complainant , Asheshwar Prasad and Suresh Kumar Gupta himself in support of his case.

            The Opposite party no1 has also filed his written argument in which no any new fact is found mentioned.

            Considering the facts, circumstances material available with the record as well as allegations of the respective parties admittedly  the opposite party has issued credit card in favour of complainant  and further as per his request the health card  was issued by them on the instance of complainant. The policy premium were deducted from his credit card as per his instruction   only question arises for adjudication that whether  the complainant is entitle  to get any medical assistance  invested by him in his medical assistance in his treatment will cover the health policy. In this regard the case of complainant is that he was informed on phone that he himself with his wife can get treatment  free from any payment in any hospital of the country and latter on unfortunately after certain days water  collect in his chest and chest became swollen accordingly he attempted for treatment from Magadh medical college and  other hospital through his credit card but both the hospitals have refused to examined and treate him accordingly HE informed  to close his  policy to the opposite party but in support of the said fact no any latter has been filed by the complainant for stop of his policy as such his policy, was not stopped and he was acknowledged that the complainant has deducted Rs.5,501/- and Rs. 6,272/- from his credit card and demanded for payment.  Regarding the  discrepancy and negligent  arises against the opposite party  the complainant  has not filed any documentary evidence of request of his policy only he has filed the several prescriptions of Drs. and has also not filed any document to show that how he was entitle  for the alleged claim of treatment having no any balance sheet. It is also necessary for complainant to clear it that whether he was entitle for investment  in treatment, in this regard there is no any paper filed by him to support his case, against that the opposite party allegations that there was due arises against him for his credit card which they have deducted and to defeat from payment the complainant his filed this false case is believable. It is relevant to say that when he was having credit facility and usage his credit card by him with health  policy he himself have to file the premium of the health policy as required by the opposite party because it was never closed and in this regard the complainant has failed to prove. In our believe the alleged dues arises regarding the premium of his policy as well as credit card facility. The complainant  found able to prove his entitlement  of investment  in medical treatment, only by filing  the Xerox copy of health guard policy document is not sufficient to get entitlement of his investment of treatment,  as such we are of the view that the complainant  is not found able to prove his  case accordingly his case is not maintainable.   

 Accordingly the case and the same is dismissed with cost.

 

            Member                                                                                 President