Present :   Sri A.K. Das,  President

                 Sri L.K. Banerjee,  Member

Order no.   11    dt. 26/09/2007

            The present forum case being no. 321/2005 has been filed by Sri Chandrasekhar Bhattacharya, 24D, Baishnabghata Lane, Kolkata-700 047, P.S. Jadavpur, the complainant to the petition of complaint against M/s. Medinova Diagnostic Services Ltd., 1, Sarat Chatterjee Avenue, Kolkata-29 before this forum with a prayer for various relief as specified at pages 5 of he main petition.

            The case has been filed by the complainant against the o.p u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts leading to the institution of the case may be summarized as follows:

            That the o.p. floated a scheme entitled ‘Medinova Gold Card’. That the present petitioner being enticed by the scheme deposited a sum of Rs.5000/- with the o.p. on 16.02.1999 for a term of 3 years which bears interest @ 19% p.a. and certain medical facility and as per terms of the policy the said amount was payable to the complainant on maturity i.e. on 15.02.2002. That the Membership Deposit Receipt being no. MDR No. 06315/X was issued in favour of the complainant. That the scheme was for 3 (three) years i.e. from 16.02.1999 to 15.02.2002 (Annex -‘A’).

            That the complainant deposited the original MDR on 25.06.2003 with the o.p. for refund of the matured amount of Rs.7850/-. The same was acknowledged by the o.p. on 25.06.2003 (Annex.-‘B’). Thereafter the petitioner wrote several letters to the o.p’s office for early refund of the matured amount which he is entitled to have after the date of maturity (Annex-‘A, B’). It appears from the record that the o.p.  did not take appropriate step for release of the matured amount.

            Thereafter the petitioner made several attempts by writing letter to the o.p.’s office for early refund of money. The o.p. gave assurance but in practice did nothing positive to redress the grievances of the petitioner. That the petitioner finding no alternative for redress of his grievance, approached the forum for proper justice and redress his grievances. Hence the present case for adjudication.

            That the o.p. has been contesting the case all along by way of filing a w/o denying therein very emphatically all the material allegation to the petition of complaint. Its positive defence is that the present case is barred by the provision of he Sec 24 of the C.P. Act,1986. That the Membership Deposit Receipt as issued to the complainant was to be surrendered by the complainant at least 15 working days before the date of maturity of the deposit at the office of the o.p. at Hyderabad. That the office of the o.p. in Calcutta had no authority to accept the deposit on maturity from the complainant. That in accordance with the terms and conditions on the overleaf of he MDR the complainant was entitled to have certain benefits and that was within the knowledge of the complainant. That the complainant had no cause of action for bringing the present case against the o.p. and for such reasons the petition of complaint should be dismissed with cost to the contesting o.p.

            In view of such allegation and counter allegation the only point that falls due for consideration before the forum is as to whether the present complainant can get any relief in the case as prayed for by him within the four corners of the C.P. Act, 1986. Let us move ahead to decide this point.

            It appears from the record that the complainant sent a letter to the office of the o.p. demanding the refund of he maturity value of the fixed deposit along with the interest as accrued thereon and that the o.p. did not care to take any step on the basis of the letter even thereto. Since there is no denial to the receipt of the letter by the oi,.p. anywhere in the w/o, it must be held that the o.p. received the letter even though it did not take any step on it. This aspect does not also support that the institution of the present case was time barred.

            We also find from the contents of the petition of the complainant as supported by a sworn affidavit that the o.p. had gross negligence and deficiency in service, since it did not care to pay back to the complainant the matured value of the deposit even though the petitioner requested it time and again verbally and also in writing for doing so and as the o.p. did not care to do anything in this regard till now.

            By taking into consideration all such aspects so long discussed in detail we have no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the complainant has been able to prove his case to the hilt so as to get adequate reliefs in this case within the ambit of the C.P. Act, 1986.

            The case succeeds on contest.

            Hence,

                        Ordered,

            We now direct that the o.p. do pay to the complainant within 45 days from the date hereof the matured amount a sum of Rs.7850/- (Rupees seven thousand eight hundred fifty) only. That the o.p. do also pay to the complainant within that time a sum of Rs.1500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred) only as compensation for causing needless mental agony and harassment to the petitioner through its negligence, inaction and deficiency; that the o.p. do also pay to the complainant within that time a sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) only as cost of the case and that the o.p. do also pay to the complainant simple interest @ 8% p.a. beginning from this day on the aforesaid sums till the full payment of the sums as ordered is made, if the o.p. does not pay such sums within the time as now given.

            Certified true copies of the judgment are supplied to the parties fre of charges as per the provision of the Sub rule (10) of the Rule 5 of the WBCPR, 1987.

         ________________                                                                                                                  _________________

         Member                                                                                   President