Date of filing : 09-03-2011
Date of order : 30 -09-2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC. 56/2011
Dated this, the 30th day of September 2011
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
1. P.M. Ismail, } Complainants
S/o. Muhammed,
R/at Monjanadukka House,
Badar Nagar, Po. Chengala,
Kasaragod Taluk & Dist.
2. P.M. Ahammed,
S/o. Muhammed,
R/at Monjanadukka House,
Badar Nagar, Po. Chengala,
Kasaragod Taluk & Dist.
3. Maryamma,
W/o. Muhammed,
R/at Monjanadukka House,
Badar Nagar, Po. Chengala,
Kasaragod Taluk & Dist.
1. The Entrepreneur, Akshaya Centre, } Opposite parties
Vidyanagar, Kasaragod.
2. Assistant District Co-ordinator,
Akshaya District Project Offier, Near Clock tower,
Railway Station Road, Thalangara, Kasaragod.
(Adv. P.Y. Ajayakumar, Hosdurg)
3. Assistant District Co-ordinator, CHIAK,
District Labour Office, Civil Station,
Vidyanagar, Kasaragod.
O R D E R
SMT.K.G.BEENA, MEMBER
This complaint is filed by P.M. Ismail and 2 others alleging deficiency of service on opposite parties while complainant Nos. 1 to 3 registered their family for the benefit of the Family Health Insurance sponsored by Government of Kerala under RSBY CHIS Scheme through opposite parties. Eventhough the complainants registered their names through opposite party No.1, they were not informed the date and venue of taking photos for the purpose of issuing health card. Thus the complainant’s family was not included in the list of beneficiary under RSBY CHIS Scheme.
2. According to opposite party No.1, they colleted applications from the public and registered their names through on line facility by charging `15/-. The date and venue of taking photographs for the purpose of issuing health card was informed by the CHIAK directly and opposite party No.1 has no role after on line registration. The District Co- oridnator of CHIAK has to be impleaded in this case.
3. As per opposite party No.2, the date of taking photographs and all other formalities informed through all leading news papers by CHIAK. It is not the duty of Akshaya project to give individual information to all persons who registered. Askhaya project is only an agent of CHIAK to provide on line facility of sending application to CHIAK. On behalf of opposite party No.3 Opposite party No.1 and 2 receiving money and providing on line facility. The only duty of opposite party is to forward the proposal form to CHIAK and give receipts. The details with regard to the aforesaid scheme was clearly published in all leading dailies. All other persons attended the photo session for smart cards on receiving information from the new papers given by CHIAK. There is no other facility arranged or offered by the 2nd opposite party. Akshaya project has no right to offer any service in addition and they have not offered any such service also.
4. Complainant filed chief affidavit in support of his case. He faced cross-examination also. Ext.A1 series marked. Opposite parties produced the advertisements given by CHIAK in Mathrubhoomi daily dated 2011 June 19 which is marked as Ext.B1. B2 series also marked .
5. The points arise for consideration are:
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3?
2. If so, what is the relief as to costs?
6. For convenience both these points can be discussed together.
After reading complaint, versions, affidavit and perusing documents we are of the view that opposite party No.1 is only an agency of CHIAK to provide on line facility of forwarding the application form to opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 has no right to offer any service in addition. The case of the complainants are that opposite party No.1 collected the phone numbers of the complainants given assurance that they will inform the date and venue of taking photos for the purpose of issuing health card. But opposite party No.1 did not inform the date. Due to the deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3 complainants lost all benefits under Health Insurance Scheme even after remitting the fee of `494/- each. No evidence is produced before the Forum that opposite party No.1 collected phone numbers of complainants and given assurance of intimation regarding the date and venue of photo session. But opposite party No.2 informed the date and place of taking photographs through all leading news papers. It was also exhibited in the notice board of Panchayaths and intimated through Kudumbasree Units. But the complainants did not get any intimation from the source about the publicity of the date and venue of taking photographs clauses are given through news papers those who were not participated in the 1st photo session through news papers. The CHIAK published through news papers that they are willing to repay the premium amount of `464/- to the complaints on receipt of their request for the same and opposite party No.2 produced paper publication of the advertisement of opposite party No.2 which is marked as Ext.B2 series. Relying upon Ext.B2 series we are exempting opposite parties 1 & 2 from the liability from payment of compensation to the complainants.
7. In Ext.B2 series opposite party No.3 express their willingness to refund the amount to those who could not get smart cards. The grievance of the complainants are that they did not get smart card. Here the complainant is before the Forum with registration slip. The Executive Director of CHIAK is ready to refund the policy amount.
In the result, complaint is allowed and opposite party No.3 is directed to refund `1392/- to the complainants (`464/- each to 3 complainants) with `2000/- as cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which interest @ 9% will be charged for `1392/- from the date of complaint till payment.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1 series RSBY CHIS Receipt-Cum-Registration Note.
B1.series (11 Nos) photocopy of Mathrubhumi
B2 Series photocopy of Mathrubhumi 2011 June 19
PW1.P.M. Ismail.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
