BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Consumer Complaint No | : | 49 of 2011 | Date of Institution | : | 28.01.2011 | Date of Decision | : | 03.05.2011 |
Kawalpreet Kaur aged 51 years r/o House NO.604, Phase-IV, Mohali. ….…Complainant V E R S U S Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.109-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through its Manager. ..…Opposite Party CORAM: SH.P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA MEMBER Argued by:Sh. Ankush Kalia, Proxy counsel for Sh.Sunil K.Dixit Adv. for complainant. Sh.D.C.Kumar, Adv. for OP PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT The complainant namely Kawalpreet Kaur has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred to as the Act”. In short, the facts of the case are that the complainant was insured vide accident Policy No.48/2010/470 (Annexure C-1) which was valid from 3.3.2009 to 02.03.2010(midnight). On 13.10.2009, the complainant met with an accident and suffered fracture on her left leg. The complainant was operated upon for tibia in Shivalik Hospital and Trauma Centre. The complainant also remained bed ridden from 13.10.09 to 31.03.2010. On submission of the claim on 30.03.2010, OP appointed investigator who recommended the claim on sub-standard basis without any justification. Then the complainant filed complaint dated 21.05.2010 (Annexure C-4) before the chief Regional Manager. As per the complainant, OP released the claim for an amount of Rs.51,420/- instead of Rs.72000/-. The complainant made various requests to the OP to release the remaining amount but to no avail, hence, this complaint. 2. OP filed their written statement taking some preliminary objections and denying the averments of the complaint made in the complaint. On merits, the issuance of the insurance policy in question has been admitted. It is also admitted that the intimation regarding the accident was received. It is denied that the complainant remained bed ridden from 13.10.09 to 31.03.10 i.e. for a period of 24 weeks on account of accident. According to OP, the complainant remained on bed upto 10.02.2010 and she was operated for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy on 15.02.2010. The complainant was advised rest from 15.02.2010 onwards which has nothing to do with the accident. As per OP, the complainant offered for settlement of her claim for 75% of the approved claim vide letter dated 06.04.2010 and accordingly the same was paid to her on 24.06.2010 vide cheque which was accepted by her with her free will and without any protest. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 3. Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 5. The OP has raised the plea that he claim has been settled as full and final settlement as the complainant has accepted the cheque sent by it with her free will and without any protest. 6. Now the only point which calls decision from this Forum is whether the complainant has received the payment vide letter 24.06.2010 without any protest as full and final settlement of her claim. The answer is in affirmative. 7. Annexure R-4 is the discharge voucher and its close scrutiny makes it clear that the cheque dated 24.06.2010 for Rs.51420/- has been received by the complainant in full and final settlement of her claim. It has been made clear in the said letter that, in case, the said offer is not acceptable, the cheque should be returned forthwith failing which it will be deemed that she had accepted the offer in full and final settlement of the claim. 8. Further, the Manager of the OP-Company wrote a letter dated 19.11.10 (Annexure R-5) wherein it has been stated that the retention of the cheque will automatically amount to acceptance in full and final settlement of the claim No.48/2010/030145. Annexure R-6 is the letter dated 06.04.2010, wherein the complainant agreed to accept the personal accident claim on 75% basis. 9. Now it is established on record that the complainant had received the amount of Rs.51,420/- in full and final settlement of the claim from the opposite parties under the insurance policy. That despite of execution of a discharge voucher qua Annexure R-4, there is no allegation of fraud, undue influence or misrepresentation from the side of the complainant. It means that the said receipt/ discharge voucher amounting to Rs.51,420/- had not been obtained by the OP from the complainant by exercising fraud, undue influence or by misrepresentation. It is also proved that the complainant while receiving the said amount gave a clean discharge to the OP without any qualification, signifying its receipt in full and final settlement of the claim. Reliance placed on 2006, CTJ , 1065( Supreme Court)(CP) National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nipha Exports Pvt. Ltd. 10. Now, the next question to be considered is as to whether after giving a clean discharge receipt by accepting the amount of Rs.51,420/- and signing the voucher, the complainant can maintain the present complaint. The answer to this is in the negative. 11. As already noticed, the payment of Rs.51,420/- has been made by the OP to the complainant on 24.06.2010 and the complainant gave the discharge to the OP without any qualification and in token thereof issued the receipt in full and final settlement of the claim, therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable. 12. Since the complaint is liable to fail on this sole ground discussed in para supra, therefore, it will be a vain attempt to go into the other aspects of the matter on merits, as such it is held that the claim was finally settled qua receipt/discharge voucher dated 24.06.2010. Thus, the present complaint is not maintainable. It is held that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. 13. As a result of the above discussion, finding the complaint to be devoid of any merits, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. 14. The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. | Sd/- | | Sd/- | Sd/- | 03.05.2011 | [ Madanjit Kaur Sahota] | | [Rajinder Singh Gill] | (P.D.Goel) | Cm | Member | | Member | President |
| | MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. P. D. Goel, PRESIDENT | DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER | | 
