In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 398 / 2008.
1) Sri Alok Mukherjee,
4H, Shanagar, Kolkata-700026. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) Manager Claims, Family Health Plan Ltd.,
16/2, Kale View Road, Kolkata-700029.
2) Sr. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Divisional Office No. IV, Lakshmi Bhavan,
609, Anna Salai, Chennai-600006.
3) Manager, Credit Card Division, HDFC Bank Ltd.,
8, N.S. Road, Kolkata-700001.
4) Superintendent, Primbada Birla Aravind Eye Hospital,
10, Loudon Street, Kolkata-700017. ---------- Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Smt. Jhumki Saha, Member.
Dr. A. B. Chakraborty, Member
Order No. 28 Dated 30/01/2012.
The petition of complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 has been filed by complainant Aloke Mukherjee against the o.ps. Family Health Plan Ltd. and others. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant took HDFC Bank Health Plus International Credit Card with built-in cashless mediclaim insurance facility bearing no.5176 3580 7426. The policy is the out come of tie up between o.p. nos.2 an 3. On 2.10.07 complainant underwent left cataract operation from o.p. no.4 as per aforesaid policy condition. All documents for the treatment were handed over to o.p. no.4 prior to operation in time and o.p. no.4 sent the same well before hand to the o.p. no.1 for necessary pre-authorization. But pre-authorization was not allowed by o.p. nos.1 and 2 but when the complainant presented his credit card to o.p. no.4 for realization of the charge of operation package of Rs.20,000/- he was informed that pre-authorization of Rs.8000/- has been received by other on 1.10.07. Thereafter complainant demanded the rest amount from o.p. nos.2 and 3 but they did not pay heed to his claimed initially, but ultimately o.p. no.1 reimbursed the due amount of medical expenses of the complainant after a lapse of two months to the satisfaction of the demand of the complainant. But meanwhile complainant have to pay Rs.3220/- and interest and incidental charges charged against his credit card for the amount of Rs.12,000/- paid to o.p. no.4. Hence the case.
O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v denying all the material allegation s labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular lying with the record and there is no dispute as regards the policy referred to above in favour of the complainant and it is also an admitted position that o.ps. met up the claim amount for operation of the complainant in its entirety. It also appears from the record that complainant had to incur a loss of Rs.3220/- towards interest and incidental charges as cashless facility was not afforded in time and the delay in payment of the entire cost of the treatment has been admitted by o.p. no.2. This position makes it clear that o.ps. had deficiency being a service provider to its consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief as prayed for.
Hence, ordered,
That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. nos.1and 2 and without cost against o.p. nos.3 and 4. O.p. nos.1 and 2 is jointly and/or severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.3220/- (Rupees three thousand two hundred twenty) only to the complainant and also a compensation of Rs.7000/- (Rupees seven thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties.
_____Sd-_____ ____Sd-______ _______Sd-_________
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
