JUDGEMENT<br /> By Sri. Pampapathi, President:-<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant No- 1 & 2 against Opposite Nos. 1 & 2 for to direct opposite No-1 to reimburse the medical expenditure amount of Rs. 38,708.59Ps with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. and to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and torture with other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case.<br /> <br /> 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, complainant No-1 is the member of M/s. S.K.S. Micro Finance Private Ltd., with benefits of Health Insurance Scheme duly introduced by ICICI Lombard which covers to all the four members of her family including complainant No-2 who is her daughter. The complainant No-1 has availed loan amount of Rs. 35,000/- in the month of January 2008 from opposite No-1, she paid the entire loan amount in installment, there is an entry to the effect in the pass book. The complainant No-2 all of a sudden fell ill, she was admitted to Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad as she was suffering from IDIOPATHIC INTRACRANIAL HYPERTENSION, she took treatment in the said hospital from 02-07-08 to 08-07-08 she spent total amount of Rs. 38,208.59Ps thereafter she submitted claim form with all required documents for to reimburse the medical expenses, but opposite No-1 is negligent in settling her claim and thereby they filed this complaint for the reliefs as noted in her complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The opposite No-1 is placed Ex-parte. The opposite No-2 appeared in this case through its Advocate, filed written version by contending that complainants not filed any claim petition with its office at any time, there were no allegations by any one of the complainants against it. If it received claim petition along with required documents it would have settled the claim after due verification by the office. Opposite No-2 is no way concerned to the obligation made, there was no negligence on its part, accordingly it prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds with exemplary cost.<br /> <br /> 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant Nos. 1 & 2 proves that, themselves with other members of their family are the members of opposite No-1 M/s. S.K.S. Micro Finance Private Ltd., Raichur and complainant No-1 availed loan from opposite No-1 and thereafter complainant No-2 fell ill and undergone medical treatment by admitting in Kamineni Hospital Hyderabad from 02-07-08 to 08-07-08 and thereafter they filed claim petition before the opposite No-1, but it shown its negligence in settling their claim and thereby opposite No-1 found guilty under deficiency in its service?<br /> <br /> 2. Whether complainants are entitled for the reliefs as prayed in their complaint?<br /> <br /> 3. What order?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-<br /> <br /> (1) In Negative.<br /> <br /> (2) In Negative.<br /> <br /> (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed <br /> to pass the final order for the following :<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> POINT NO.1 & 2:-<br /> <br /> 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant No-1 was filed, she was noted as PW-1, affidavit-evidence of complainant No-2 was filed, she was noted as PW-2 and affidavit-evidence of the husband of the complainant No-1 was filed, he was noted as PW-3. Documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of the Manager Legal, was filed he was noted as RW-1. No documents filed and marked. <br /> <br /> 7. In the instant case opposite No-2 ICICI Lombard Health Insurance Company was impleaded in this complaint and the reliefs column of the complaint was amended as prayed by the complainants in their application. But complainants have not sought amendment of the body of the complainant by making any kind of allegations against opposite No-2 as on today, there are no single allegations with regard to non settlement of claim of them or with regard to deficiency in service against opposite No-2 ICICI Lombard. Mere amending the prayer column of the complaint by making opposite No-2 as it is also jointly and severally liable to pay the insurance claim with opposite No-1 is not sufficient the claim of complainants against opposite No-2, with regards to deficiency in its service or with regard to its negligence. The learned advocate for complainant submitted before this Forum at the time of his arguments by admitting that none of the complainants are notaving any kind of grievances against opposite No-2. This fact was also highlighted by the learned advocate for opposite No-2. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, we are of the clear view that the complaint filed by these complainants 1 & 2 against opposite No-2 is not maintainble, accordingly we have dismissed this complaint against opposite No-2 as there was no case of deficiency in its service by opposite No.2. <br /> <br /> 8. Now coming to the case of complainants against opposite No-1, there are no connecting evidences with regard to loan borrowed by complainant No-1 from opposite No-1 vide Pass Book at Ex.P-2 with Book Let vide Ex.P-1, complainants not established the contractual obligations in between them with opposite No-1 with regard to indemnification of medical expenses said to have incurred by complainant No-2, Ex.P-1 the Book Let is not creating any contractual obligations by opposite No-1 in that regard. There is no document to show that Ex.P-3 Claim Form said to have submitted by the complainant before the opposite No-1 or opposite No-2. There are no allegations against opposite No-2, it appears to us that the complainants themselves have not properly and interestingly pleaded and evidenced in this case to prove the allegations made against opposite No-1. The complainants have not tried to convince us with regard to obligations of the opposite No-1 for to reimburse the medical expenses said to have incurred by the complainant No-2 under written agreement. Ex.P-1 not suffice to prove this fact, as such we are of the view that the nature of the allegations made by the complainant not suffice to hold the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite No-1, accordingly we answered Point No-1 in Negative.<br /> <br /> 9. In view of our finding on Point No-1, complainants are not entitled for any one of the reliefs, as prayed in this complaint, accordingly we answered Point No-2 in Negative.<br /> <br /> POINT NO.3:-<br /> <br /> 10. In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> This complaint filed by the complainant Nos. 1 & 2 against opposite No- 1 & 2 is dismissed. <br /> <br /> Intimate the parties accordingly. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 15-12-09)<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Pampapathi,<br /> President,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Gururaj, Member,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/- <br /> Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, <br /> Member. <br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />