In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 205 / 2010 .
1) Mr. Rathindro Chandra Majumder,
Flat No. E-402, Benubon Co-Operative,
93/2, Kankulia Road, Kolkata-700029. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001
And 18/2, Gariahat Road, Kolkata-700019. ---------- Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
Order No. 24 Dated 31/08/2012.
The instant case has been filed by complainant with an allegation against the o.p. for deficiency in service which is within the scope and ambit of COPRA, 1986. In a nutshell the case of the complainant is that the complainant took hospitalization and domiciliary benefit policy under the o.p. and he paid the premium regularly. Then from last week of December 2008 due to illness the complainant after investigation and consultation with the medical practitioners came to know the permanent pace maker ought to be replaced for which he ought to be hospitalized without further delay and ultimately hospitalized under Dr. Joyanta Dutta for supervision and treatment on 4.1.09 and operated by Dr. Goutam Sengupta on 5.1.09 for replacement of exhaust permanent pace maker under LA and discharged on 8.1.09.
Total cost of expenditure took place for treatment amounted to Rs.27,176/- and thereafter as per rules and regulations he filed up the claim to the o.p. for the period of 4.1.09 to 8.1.09 amounting Rs.27,176/- but in the month Nov.2009 he has received Rs.17,901/- through a cheque dt.20.11.09 from o.p. as full and final settlement of the claim. The complainant time and again requested to the o.p. for reimbursement of the balance amount of Rs.9275/- but o.p. did not redress the dispute of the complainant despite thorough persuasion of the complainant. from o.p. Hence the complainant has no alternative but to file the instant case before this Forum for redressal of his disputes and he prayed for relief as mentioned in the complaint petition.
O.p. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v denying all the material allegation labeled against them and prayed or dismissal of the case.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and evidence and documents in particular. From para 7 and 8 of the petition of complaint it is the averment of the complainant that complainant received Rs.17,901/- out of his claim of Rs.27,176/- and this position has been admitted by the complainant. From para 8 it transpires that complainant is entitled to further sum of Rs.9275/- from o.p. and the documents on record support this position very much.
In view of the above position and on perusal of the entire materials on record we are of the view that o.p. had deficiencies on their part being a service provider to its consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest with cost against o.p. O.p. is directed to pay a sum of Rs.9275/- (Rupees nine thousand two hundred seventy five) only to the complainant and is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.7000/- (Rupees seven thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
