By means of the present Petition, the Petitioner/Bank is challenging the impugned order dated 20.03.2018, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 758 of 2017. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the Bank against the order dated 08.05.2017, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal (for short “the District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No. 176 of 2016. While allowing the Complaint, preferred by Respondent No.1 herein, the District Forum had directed the Bank to pay to the Complainant a sum of ₹3.00 Lakhs as treatment amount along with ₹5,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment, and ₹5,500/- as litigation expenses. The facts, leading to the filing of the present Petition, are that the Complainant had been issued a mediclaim policy, through the agency of the Bank, by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. The policy was to expire on 28.12.2015. For renewal of the policy, the Complainant approached the Bank, which for the purpose of issuing a demand draft deducted a sum of Rs.4,726/- from the account of the Complainant. However, for one reason or the other, which is not on record, the Bank did not send the demand draft to the Oriental Insurance Company Limited for renewal of the policy. In the meantime, the mishap occurred, wherein the wife of the Complainant met with a road-side accident on 20.07.2016 and got multiple grievous injuries, for which she was hospitalized in Apex Hospital, Palwal, and, thereafter admitted in Escorts Hospital, Faridabad for head surgery, for which the Complainant had to incur expenses of ₹3,50,000/-. The fact that the bank draft of ₹4,726/- was got prepared by the Bank on 22.12.2015 to get the policy in question renewed is admitted. The same was not sent to the office of the Insurance Company till 27.01.2016 also stands admitted. Had the policy renewed on 29.12.2015, the mediclaim policy would have been available to the Complainant at the time when his wife met with an accident on 20.07.2016. In view of the above, we are in agreement with the State Commission. While dismissing the Appeal, preferred by the Bank, the State Commission has observed as under: “7. Learned Counsel for the appellant-OP No.3 vehemently argued that even if draft was prepared by it’s office, it is not liable to pay compensation to the complainant. In support of his argument he placed reliance upon judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking Versus Basanti Devi and another, AIR 2000 (SC) 43 and Rajasthan High Court expressed in Life Insurance Corporation of India and others Versus Smt. Mukesh Devi and others, AIR 2002 Rajasthan 404. 8. This argument is devoid of enforce. It may be mentioned in the very beginning that these judgments are pertaining to employer and employee and not to consumer and service provider. As per facts mentioned above it is clear that demand draft of Rs.4,726/- was prepared by OP No.3 on 22.12.2015 to get his policy renewed, but did not send the same to the office of OPs No. 1 and 2 till 27.01.2016. It is no where alleged by OP No. 3 that it was not under obligation to send that draft to OPs No. 1 and 2. It is no where explained that due to which reason draft could not be sent. When complainant alleged fault on the part of OP No.3 it was bounded duty to explain the same. Reply filed by OP No.3 is vague and indefinite. There is no ground to presume that there was no laxity on it’s part. So, learned District Forum rightly granted compensation as mentioned above. Findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned, based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly, appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.” From the aforesaid, it is clear that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Bank and, therefore, the compensation has rightly been allowed to the Complainant. Resultantly, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly. |
