Haryana

Sonipat

CC/418/2015

Ram Kumar Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Jeetan Dutt Sharma

22 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

                                                      

                                    Complaint No.418 of 2015

                                    Instituted on:13.11.2015

                                    Date of order:22.04.2016

 

Ram Kumar Gupta son of (name not mentioned) resident of 903/A/19 Street Hanuman Mandir, near double transformer, new jiwan nagar, Sonepat.

     …….Complainant

 

                   VERSUS

 

1.The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch 204R, Model Town, Atlas road, Sonepat through its Branch Manager.

2.The Director Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Shilpa Vidhya 3^rd Floor, 49, First Main road, Sarakki Indl. Layour, IIIrd stage, JP Nagar, Benglore.

     ……..Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. JD Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Surender Malik, Adv. for respondents.

 

BEFORE-   Nagender Singh, President.

          Smt. Prabha Wati, Member.

         

 

O R D E R

 

        Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he has purchased medi claim policy PNB-Oriental Royal mediclaim policy no.261600/48/2015/2385 valid w.e.f. 26.2.2015 to 25.2.2016.  The said policy covered the name of his wife Chhoto.  Smt. Chhoti Devi wife of complainant fell ill and her operation in emergency was conducted in Ishwar Eye Centre, Rohtak and Rs.17430/- were incurred by the complainant.  The complainant has lodged the claim and has completed all the formalities, but the respondents have availed the same and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

2.       In reply, the respondents have submitted that the complainant’s claim has already been settled and paid to him vide EFT transaction no.CITIN 5614289242 dated 19.12.2015 for Rs.15980/- whereas the complainant has lodged the claim of Rs.17480/- and nothing due remains towards the respondents.  The complainant himself has not provided all the required papers in time and due to this, the claim could not be settled and immediately on receipt of the papers, the claim was settled and claim amount of Rs.15980/- has already been paid to him.  So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

4.       Today during the course of arguments, ld. Counsel for the complainant has made a statement that the respondents have credited Rs.15980/- in the account of the complainant vide EFT transaction no.CITIN 5614289242.

         Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that since the amount has been credited in the account of the complainant, the present complaint has become infructuous.

         But we find no force in this contention of the ld. Counsel for the respondents because the complainant is senior citizen and due to the deficient services rendered by the respondents, the complainant has to suffer unnecessary mental agony and harassment and he has to knock the doors of this Forum for redressal of his grievances. In our view, the complainant is entitled to get some sort of compensation from the respondents and thus, we hereby direct the respondents to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2000/- (Rs.two thousand) to the complainant for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands disposed off.

         Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

 

(Prabha Devi-Member)                  (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.                      DCDRF Sonepat.

 

Announced 22.04.2016