This is an application under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Brief facts of the complainant’s case is that, the complainant is the owner of a Maruti Suzuki Swift Dzire VDI, bearing no. WB74Z-7053, which was insured with the Opposite Party National Insurance Company Limited vide Insurance Policy No. 153902311810005003 and the Insured Declared Value had been settled that Rs. 303333/- (Rupees Three Lakh Three Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Thirty Only). During the subsistence of the above Insurance Policy, on 22.05.2019 the complainant had been driving the above mentioned vehicle from his home town at Gairkata to Coochbehar, to visit his sister, who was residing in the house of one Gopal Chandra Dhar at Ward No. 12 in New Town Coochbehar. At 8. a.m. when the complainant, who was driving the vehicle, was about to reach Mora Torsha Bridge near Coochbehar, when he started experiencing uneasiness, discomfort and dizziness. He stepped outside the car and some how manage to call his sister on phone for help and thereafter, he had blacked out near his vehicle.

He regained his consciousness at the A.M.R.I. Hospitals at Coochbehar and found himself being treated by Dr. Sudipta Ranjan Saha. In the medical prescription issued by the above Doctor it had been noted that the complainant had suffered dizziness with vertigo and chest discomfort. The complainant’s blood pressure had also been recorded to be 190/100. The complainant had been subjected to various medical tests such as E.C.G., Blood- C.B.C./ L.F.T./ Lipid Profile etc. and C.T. Scan of the brain. The complainant further received news that the vehicle he had been driving, which had been parked by the road side near Mora Torsha Bridge had been found missing. On the very day i e on 22.05.2019, the complainant lodged a complaint before the I.C. Kotwali P.S. Dist-
Coochbehar and which had been registered as Kotwali P.S. case no. 282/19 dt. 22.05.2019 under section 379 of the I.P.C. On the following day dt. 23.05.2019 the complainant intimated the O.P. No. 2 and prayed for necessary settlement of his legitimate claims and the said letter had been received by the O.P. No. 2 office on the very date. On receipt of the letter the O.P. No. 2 issued a letter Ref: 153902/Claims/ KKS/2020 dt. 10.06.2020 directing the complainant to submit two(2) Ignition Key and F.R.T. Meanwhile, the complainant intimated the R.T.O. Siliguri M.V. Department vide letter dt. 05.09.2019 for requesting to close the Registration of the missing vehicle.

The authorized surveyor and loss Assessor, by his letter dt. 18.11.2019  asked upon the complainant to submit various documents for disbursal of his claims.

The complainant also updated the N.C.R.B. and the Pradhan, Sakoyajhora G.P., regarding the missing of the vehicle vide letters dt. 02.12.2019. The authorized surveyor and loss Assessor by his letter dt. 26.02.2020 again called for submission of the necessary documents and the complainant had supplied all the documents.

In response to the O.P. No. 2’s  letter dt. 10.06.2020 and the complainant explained by his letter dt. 26.06.2020 that he had already submitted one Ignition Key and the F.R.T. could not be supplied due to Lock Down.

Despite having complied with all the requirements that O.P. Insurance Company repudiated the claims vide a letter  Ref: 153902/Claims/ KKS/2020 dt. 17.08.2020. The complainant further prayed for reconsideration vide his letter dt. 28.08.2020. in response the O.P. No. 2 vide their letter Ref: 153902/Claims/ KKS/2020 dt. 02.09.2020 had rejected the complainant’s plea. The complainant further requested the O.P. No. 1 vide his letter dt. 25.09.2020 but there was no response. Finding no alternative the complainant filed this case. Hence this case.

The O.P. No. 1 has filed a Written Version wherein they have challenged the veracity of the complainant’s case on the ground that it appeared improbable that the complainant would have blacked out and lodged a complaint on the very same date and also file a claim petition on the following date. Moreover, the complainant had left behind the ignition key in the car itself for which he could not supply the same and therefore, the repudiation of the claim on the ground of negligence was justified.

The complainant has in support of his contention had filed an affidavit corroborating the complaint case. In further corroboration he has filed certain Annexures  namely the prescription of Dr. Sudipta Ranjan Saha the O.P.D. Document of Coochbehar Government Medical College and Hospital, M.J.N. Hospital, E.C.G., Receipt of A.M.R.I. Hospitals, C.T. Scan Report of A.M.R.I. Hospital, a copy of complaint to I.C. Kotwali P.S. Coochbehar, copy of o the G.R. Case No. 483/2019 sheet, copy of F.R.T., copied of Order Sheet G.R. 483/2019, Copy of Formal F.I.R., Copy of complaint to the I.C. Kotwali P.S. Coochbehar, Copy of claim application to Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Bir Para, Copy of letter to R.T.O., Siliguri, M.V. Department, Copy of Letter dt. 18.11.02019 sent by Surveyors and Loss Assessors, Copy of Letter to N.C.R.B., Copy of Letter to Pradhan Sakoyajhora G.P., Copy of Letter dt. 26.02.2020 sent by Surveyors and Loss Assessors, Copy of First reminder National Insurance Company Limited, Bir Para, Copy of Letter dt. 25.06.2020 sent to Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Bir Para, Copy of Letter dt. 17.08.2020 by National Insurance Company Limited, Copy of Letter dt. 28.08.2020 sent to Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Bir Para, Copy of Letter dt. 02.09.2020 sent by National Insurance Company Limited, Bir Para, Copy of Letter sent to Divisional Manager and Branch Manager National Insurance Company Limited.

Though the O.P. Insurance Company filed Written Version but ultimately failed to contest the claim of the complainant, as a result the case was heard ex-parte.

The claim of the complainant had been repudiated on the ground of violation of the policy condition number 5 with says “The Insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle from loss or damage”. In this regard, the complainant’s explanation for leaving the ignition keys, behind the above vehicle on 22.05.2019, is that the complainant while driving towards Coochbehar in the above vehicle felt uneasiness and dizziness and somehow managed to call his sister for help after coming out of the above vehicle and before suffering a blackout and had regain his consciousness in the A.M.R.I. Hospitals, Coochbehar. But the Annexures filed by the complainant clearly show from the prescription of Dr. Sudipta Ranjan Saha, Annexure-3, that he had been taken to his chamber at J.K. Medical on 22.05.2019 and where the complainant was referred to E.R.of M.C.H.-S.O.S. There is nothing in the prescription of the above doctor to show that the complainant had been brought in an unconscious condition. Rather the recommendation to the M.C.H. is qualified by S.O.S. which means in case of emergency or urgency, thereby contradicting the complainant’s version of unconsciousness and seriousness. Moreover, the Annexure-3/1 which is the O.P.D. form of M.J.N. Hospital dt. 22.05.2019 and the doctor attending was Dr. K. Mondol who had advised for C.T. Scan of Brain(P), E.C.G. and referred to M.O.P.D. This document also does not speak of the complainant’s unconsciousness or seriousness, there by dealing a blow to the complainant’s assertion. Annexure-3/3 and 3/4 which are the receipt and C.T. Scan of Brain(Plain) respectively also do not show of any abnormality in the brain.

Therefore, from the above findings it transpires that the complainant was not unconscious or serious when he was brought to Coochbehar for medical attention. From the copy of the F.I.R. dt. 22.05.2019 Annexure-4 as well as the F.R.T. Annexures-5/1, 5/2, 5/3 clearly show that the complainant had been attended at the place of occurrence by his sister and her husband. As already found above, that the complainant had not been as serious and unconscious as claimed by him therefore, normal prudence would suggests that when the complainant was found at the place of occurrence it was not so alarming that the sister and her husband would fail to  collect the keys of the car after locking the same, knowing fully well that the above vehicle would remain unmanned on a highway, for an indefinite period of time.

Under the circumstance, such discrepancies in the complainant’s case as stated in the complaint appears to be quite enormous that it fails to inspire confidence in the veracity of the complainant’s version. In any case the rulings relied upon on behalf of the complainant as reported in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR. VS. GIRISH GUPTA reported in III(2014)CPJ 663(NC), SOURAV PAUL VS. BAJAJ ALLAINZ GENERAL INSUSRANCE CO. LTD. reported in IV 2008 CPJ 506, SUKHWINDER SINGH VS. CHOLAMANDALAM- MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR. reported in IV (2013)CPJ 218(NC) and NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS. TARLOK SINGH reported in IV (2019)CPJ 183(NC) also do not come to his rescue in the instant case, in view of the discrepancies found in the complainant’s case.

In other words, the instant case is bound to fail.

It is therefore,

O R D E R E D

That the instant case be and the same is dismissed ex-parte, but without costs considering the facts and the circumstances of the case.

Copy of the Judgement be delivered free of costs to both the sides.