DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,GURGAON-122001.
Consumer Complaint No: 235 of 2013 Date of Institution: 09.07.2013/15.07.2013 Date of Decision: 20.10.2015.
M/s Kalyani Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon-122001 through its Director Dr. Sushil Khurana.
……Complainant.
Versus
- Medico Imaging Company, Regd. Office at 101, Shiv Industrial Estate, K.B.B.Marg, Mumbai-400012 through its Managing Director.
- Philips Electronics India Ltd, North Regional Office: 9th Floor, DLF 9-B, DLF Cyber City, Sector-25, DLF Phase-3, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana through its Managing Director.
- Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd, at 386-387, Jacub Pura, Old Railway Road, Gurgaon.
- Chairman, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, 87 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Ford Mumbai-400001.
..Opposite parties
Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986
BEFORE: SH.SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER
SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Satbir Yadav, Adv for the complainant.
OP-1exparte
Sh.Sanjeev Kumar Raghav, Adv for OP-2
Sh. N.K.Saini, Adv for the opposite party No.3 & 4
ORDER SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that complainant purchased one medical equipment C-Arm Image Intensifier System (Machine Sr.No.G6L174) from OP-1 vide their Invoice No.118 dated 04.11.2006 for Rs.7,40,000/-. The same was duly insured with OP-3 with the opposite party no.3. However, during the subsistence of the insurance policy said machine developed defect which was got repaired from OP-2 and when the complainant submitted the claim for reimbursement of Rs.1,32,632/- the same was rejected on the ground that there was mismatch in the serial number of the machine bearing Sr.No.G6L174. The complaint is supported with an affidavit of complainant and the documents placed on file.
2 Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. However, OP-1 failed to turn up despite service and thus, was proceeded exparte on 20.01.2014.
3 OP-2 in it written reply has alleged that serial number of the machine was not legible to be read and thus, entry in the system was wrongly mentioned as G4L174 instead of correct no i.e. G6L174. The report was also made with this incorrect number. Upon enquiry from the complainant about the serial number and requesting for the confirmation on the fact that the correct serial number is G6L174, the opposite party no.2 issued a letter to the complainant confirming the same and stating that there was only one system which was supplied to the complainant and for which the LAMC was given to the complainant is G6L174 for the service period Sept 5, 2012 to Sept 4, 2013. However, when the error was recognized then it was also amended correctly. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.2
4 OP-3 & 4 in their joint written reply have alleged that complainant given the information regarding damage of Surgico-60 HFX (9” Mobile C-ARM Image Intensifier with ACC, Equipment Sr. No. GAL174 on dated 07.09.2012 to the OP-3 and on the information of the complainant OP-3 has appointed Shri Ajay Kumar Ahuja independent approved Surveyor & Loss Assessor for investigating the matter and assessing the loss and the above said surveyor has assessed the loss of Rs.78,804/- minus Rs.2304 ( as salvage) total Rs.76,500/- of Machine No.G6L174 and not GAL174 as intimated by insured. As per photographs submitted by him of different dates, the machine does not bear any Sr. No. It is also submitted that in the claim intimation dated 07.09.2012 the complainant has itself mentioned the Sr. NO.GAL174 and later on changed it as G6L174. As per policy, the machine with Sr.No.GAL174 is insured with the opposite party. Surveyor assessed the loss of Machine which as per photographs has no Sr. No. Complainant was asked to submit supporting documents and to clarify the position. As per Invoice dated 04.11.2006, C Arm Machine with Sr. No.G6L174 was installed in the hospital in the year 2006. As per Philips Electronic India Ltd (AMC) Service report 13.07.2010 (Arm Surgical Machine G6L136 is installed in the hospital and as per report dated 23.12.2010 of OP-2, Machine Sr. No.G4L174 was installed in the hospital. In all the documents submitted by insured along with their letter dated 15.03.2013 the serial number of machines are different. It means that there are four C-Arm Machines installed in the hospital and machine in which los is reported is not insured with the opposite party-Insurance Company. Hence, this claim is not payable and the insurance company has closed the claim as No Claim vide letter dated 03.04.2013. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party-insurance company.
5 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record available on file carefully.
6 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency of service on their part on the ground that complainant got C-Arm Image Intensifier System from OP-1 and the same was under AMC with opposite party no.2. During the subsistence of the insurance policy the said machine developed defects and the same was got serviced from OP-2 who raised a bill of Rs.1,32,632/- (Ann-7). The complainant submitted the claim for reimbursement but the same was declined on the ground that there was mismatch in the serial number of the machine in question.
7 However, the contention of the OP-2 is that that serial number of the machine was not legible to be read and thus, entry in the system was wrongly mentioned as G4L174 instead of correct no i.e. G6L174 whereas the contention of the opposite party-insurance company is that machine in which the loss reported was not covered as per the policy particulars available with the insurance company and thus, the claim was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 03.04.2013.
8 As per the contention raised on behalf of OP-3 & 4 Shri Ajay Kumar Ahuja was appointed as Surveyor who has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.78,804.00- Rs.2304 = Rs.76,500/- and the complainant has mentioned Sr. No. of the machine as GAL174 and the Surveyor has also mentioned that the said machine does not bear Serial number and in the intimation dated 07.09.2012 the complainant has also mentioned Sr. No. GAL174 but later on same has been mentioned as G6L174 as an afterthought and as such there is difference in the serial number of the said machine and the machine in which loss has taken place was not insured with the OP –insurance company and as such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.3 & 4.
9 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file and in view of the contention raised by OP-2 who has supplied the said machine and repaired the same it emerges that the complainant got the machine installed bearing Sr. No.G6L174 and the same was got insured since 2006 onwards and when the defect occurred in the machine the matter was reported to the opposite party no.2 who was supplier as well as service provider for repairing the said machine, repaired the same but due to clerical mistake as admitted by manufacturer/AMC provider, the said machine was having Sr. No.G6L174 but since number was not legible and as such due to mistake the same has been mentioned as G4L174 instead of G6L174. There is no evidence on the file that the complainant was having any other machine except the machine which was supplied by opposite party no.2 and insured by OP-3 & 4 and the same developed defects which were repaired by OP-2 and the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,32,632/- vide Bill (Ann-7). No doubt, the Surveyor has assessed the loss in his surveyor report ( Ann R-8) to the tune of Rs.78,804/- but there is no reason as to why 25 % has been deducted on account of betterment. Therefore, we are not inclined to believe the surveyor report. Therefore, we hold that machine which was insured developed defects and the same was repaired by OP-2 and as such on account of non reimbursement of the claim there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No.3 & 4.
10 Therefore, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties No.3 & 4 to reimburse the claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,32,632/-(Minus Salvage Rs.2304/-) with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 09.07.2013 till realization. The complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.10,000/- for harassment and mental agony as well as litigation expenses of Rs.3100/-. The opposite party No.3 & 4 shall make the compliance of the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.
Announced (Subhash Goyal)
20.10.2015 President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Gurgaon
(Jyoti Siwach) (Surender Singh Balyan)
Member Member
