DISTRICT FORUM :: KADPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT
SRI S.A. KHADER BASHA, B.Sc., MEMBER.
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., MEMBER
Monday, 9th August 2010
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 33/ 2010
Dr. M. Venugopal Reddy, S/o Somi Reddy,
aged 65 years, M/s Dr. Savitramma Memorial Hospital,
D.No. 1/705, Dwarakanagar, Kadapa City & District. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
The United India Assurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its
Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Kotireddy Circle,
Kadapa City and District. ….. Respondent.
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 05-8-2010 in the presence of Sri D. Rajasekhar Reddy, Advocate, for complainant and Sri K. Ramakondaiah, Advocate for respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per S.A. Khader Basha, Member),
1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The complainant Dr. M. Venu Gopal Reddy is a practicing doctor having a hospital under the name and style of Dr. Savitramma Memorial Hospital in D.No. 1/705, Dwaraka Nagar, Kadapa city. This is a two stared building. The complainant insured this building with the respondent company for Rs. 35,00,000/- and stock contents of Rs. 15,00,000/- under standard fire and special perils policy bearing No. 058981/11/05/0051 valid from 30-12-2005 to 29-12-2006. The Respondent charged premium for the said sum assured under the Standard Fire and Special Perils policy. The complainant noticed a fire occurred on 15-12-2006 at about 6.30 p.m again at about 11.30 p.m due to short circuit in the said hospital building. The policy was in force on the date of fire accident. This was intimated on 18-12-2006 by the complainant by way of letter to the Respondent requesting to arrange a surveyor and to estimate the damage due to fire. The Respondent also received the same on the date and the Respondent company issued a claim form to the complainant. The complainant submitted the claim form along with other documents to the Respondent company and enclosed an estimation for repair of electricals. After receiving the claim, the Respondent company appointed one T. Gangadhar Prasad, surveyor for estimating the loss to the complainant occurred due to fire accident. Accordingly the said surveyor and loss assessor conducted survey to the above building of the complainant. The A.P Fire and Emergency Services Department, Kadapa attended the said hospital building on 15-12-2006 and issued a certificate to the complainant in which they mentioned clearly that the building and electrical articles were got damaged due to cause Fire is electric origin. The Station Fire Officer, Kadapa estimated the loss of property to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- approximately. The entire electrical cables, indicators, change over switches, aluminum cables, copper cables other PVC pipes and other electric articles were damaged in the said hospital and the estimation also prepared by an electrical worker estimating the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,14,903/-. The original bills and the original estimation was also submitted to the Respondent company. The Respondent company has not settled the claim. So the complainant requested the Respondent company to settle the claim on phone as well as personal visits to the office of the Respondent and orally requested the Regional Manager of the Respondent company to settle his claim. The complainant requested by way of written request dt. 22-10-2007 for settlement of the claim of the complainant. Finally the complainant issued a letter to the Respondent company on 17-3-2008 and again submitted Xerox copy of fire service attendance certificate, claim form, copy of policy and intimation dt. 18-12-2006 as required by the respondent company. But the Respondent company not settled the claim of the complainant. At the end the Respondent company repudiated the claim on 27-6-2008 stating that one K. Gangadhar Prasad, surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 6,650/-. After taking under insurance into account and before deduction policy excess of Rs. 10,000/-. Since the claim amount is within the policy excess. The repudiation of the respondent company is illegal and not binding on the complainant. The services of the respondent company has not provided good services to the complainant as such there is a deficiency of services on the part of the Respondent company for non-settlement of the claim of the complainant. The complainant filed this complaint requesting this forum to direct the respondent to pay Rs. 1,14,903/- including labour charges with 18% interest, to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards expenses of this complaint and Rs. 30,000/- towards deficiency of service of the Respondent and Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony in the interest of justice.
3. The Respondent filed a counter stating that the complaint is neither just nor maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. The complainant is put to strict proof of all the allegations averred in the complaint except those which are specifically admitted herein by the Respondent. According to the complaint, the complainant got his hospital insured with the Respondent for Rs. 35,00,000/- and Rs. 15,00,000/- for stocks, contents and standard fire and special perils policy. According to the insurance policy, whenever damage is occurred to the hospital due to accident i.e. fire, earthquake and other, the insurance policy has to indemnify the damage as per terms and conditions of the policy. According to the policy terms and conditions, the policy excess amount is Rs. 10,000/- whenever the loss is occurred to the insured property if the loss is below Rs. 10,000/- the Respondent has no liability to indemnify the same. According to the complainant on 15-12-2006 at about 6.30 p.m and again at 11.30 p.m due to short circuit of fire accident was occurred. The damage was estimated at Rs. 1,14,903/- after the accident the complainant intimated the same to the Respondent company and the Respondent company deputed one surveyor to estimate the actual loss. According to the surveyor report the total loss is only Rs. 6,650/-. After thorough investigation and after receiving the surveyors report the Respondent company repudiated the claim as assessed net loss is within the policy and excess of Rs. 10,000/-. Hence, the Respondent company is not liable to indemnify the complainant as the assessed net loss is below the policy excess amount and the Respondent acted as per terms and conditions of the policy. The question of deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent does not arise. The complaint is not maintainable before this forum and the Respondent requested to dismiss the complaint in the interest of justice.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
ii. To what relief?
5. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A8 were marked and on behalf of the respondent Ex. B1 & B2 were marked. Oral arguments were heard from both sides.
6. Point No. 1. Ex. A1 is the Photostat copy of insurance policy. Ex. A2 is the Photostat copy of intimation dt. 18-12-2006 of the complainant addressed to the Respondent. Ex. A3 is the Photostat copy of fire insurance claim form dt.29-12-2006. Ex. A4 is the Photostat copy of fire service attendant certificate dt. 15-12-2006 issued by Station Fire Officer, Kadapa. Ex. A5 is the Photostat copy of estimation for Rs. 1,14,093/-. Ex. A6 is the Photostat copy of letter dt. 22-4-2007 by the complainant addressed to the Respondent. Ex. A7 is the Photostat copy of another letter dt. 17-3-2008 of the complainant addressed to the Respondent. Ex. A8 is the Photostat copy of repudiation letter dt. 27-6-2008. Ex. B1 is the original policy bearing No. 050981/11/05/11/00000051 certificate. Ex. B2 is the original surveyor report along with colour photographs.
7. As could be seen from the documentary evidence it is a fact that the complainant insured the hospital building for Rs. 35,00,000/- and its contents for Rs. 15,00,000/- under Ex. A1 and Ex. B1. He paid premium and the policy was inforce from 30-12-2005 to 29-12-2006 due to short circuit on 15-12-2006. Fire accident took place at about 6.30 p.m and again at 11.30 p.m as a result of adequate amount of property was burnt and damage. The fire service attendance certificate Ex. A4 issued by Station Fire Officer, Kadapa indicates that the cause of fire was electrical short circuit and he estimated the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- approximately. The complainant submitted an estimation to the tune of Rs. 1,14,093/- including electrical items that were burnt and damaged. The surveyor’s report Ex. B2 indicates that he assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 11,925/- and finally it was reduced for Rs. 6,650/-. It is pertinent to mention here that the surveyor has not taken into account the electrical goods and electrical items that were burnt and damaged. Looking at the colour photographs taken at the place of fire accident gives an impression to the necked eye that the damages caused to the hospital building of the complainant not worth of Rs. 6,650/-. There is no reason to disbelieve the report of Fire Officer, Kadapa Ex. A4 in which he assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- approximately should not be taken into consideration of the fire accident that is reflected from the colour photographs and other documents. The complainant deserves consideration in his favour and the Respondent thoroughly failed to establish his defense and also failed to substantiate the reasonable grounds of repudiation letter Ex. A8 issued by the Respondent company.
8. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the Respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 1,14,093/- (Rupees one lakh fourteen thousand and ninety three only) towards compensation, Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs, payable within 45 days without interest from the date of receipt of this order. The rest of the claim is dismissed.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 9th August 2010
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant NIL For Respondent : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 P/c of insurance policy.
Ex. A2 P/c of intimation dt. 18-12-2006 of the complainant addressed
to the Respondent.
Ex. A3 P/c of fire insurance claim form dt. 29-12-2006.
Ex. A4 P/c of fire service attendant certificate dt.15-12-2006 issued by Station
Fire Officer, Kadapa.
Ex. A5 P/c of estimation for Rs. 1,14,093/-.
Ex. A6 P/c of letter dt. 22-4-2007 by the complainant addressed to the
Respondent.
Ex. A7 P/c of another letter dt. 17-3-2008 of the complainant addressed to the
Respondent.
Ex. A8 P/c of repudiation letter dt. 27-6-2008.
Exhibits marked for Respondent: -
Ex. B1 Original policy bearing No. 050981/11/05/11/00000051 certificate.
Ex. B2 Original surveyor report along with colour photographs.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
1) Sri D. Rajasekhar Reddy, Advocate, for complainant.
2) Sri K. Ramakondaiah, Advocate for Respondent
1) Copy was made ready on :
2) Copy was dispatched on :
3) Copy of delivered to parties :
B.V.P. - - -
