BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:
HYDERABAD.
FA.NO.1206 OF 2005 AGAINST C.D.NO.33 OF 2002 District Forum-I, HYDERABAD.
Between:
1. Sri M.Kameswara Rao,
S/o.Papayya Sastry,
Aged 62 years, Occupation:Retd. Bank Officer,
R/o.1-7-145/5, Upstairs, Srinivasa Nagar Colony,
Golconda Chowrastha, Hyderabad-20.
2. Smt.M.M.Jaya Rama Lakshmi,
W/o.M.Kameswara Rao,
Aged 54 years, Occupation:Household,
R/o.1-7-145/5, Upstairs, Srinivasanagar Colony,
Golconda Chowrastha, Hyderabad-20. ...Appellants/
Complainants
And
The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance
Co. Ltd., Represented by its Divisional Manager,
R/o.Ist & 2nd floors, Crystal Plaza, Door
No.10-5-5/4, Masab Tank, Hyderabad ..Respondent/
Opp.party
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.G.Balaram
Counsel for the Respondent:-Mr.Ch.Durga Prasad.
QUORUM:THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
AND
SMT.M.SHREESHA, LADY MEMBER.
TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.
Oral Order : (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Lady Member)
***
Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.33/2002 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad, the complainants preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that complainant No.1, a retired bank officer, and complainant No.2, his wife, wanted to visit Detroit-USA for holiday travel and obtained passport, visa and also Mediclaim insurance under Videsh Yatra Mitra Policies on 28-8-2000 and the maturity date was 1-3-2001. Complainant No.1 representing both the complainants addressed a letter to the opposite party on 29-1-2001 for renewal of both the policies for a period of six months and also stated that if for any reason the said sum of Rs.30,000/- falls short of the amount required, opposite party was requested to renew the policies for a proportionate period. There was no reply from the opposite party and therefore the complainants contacted the Development Officer of the opposite party, Mr.Sarma and Indian Overseas bank branch for renewal on phone from Detroit. The complainants were intimated by the Development Officer and Indian Overseas Bank that an additional amount of Rs.8,000/- was required for renewal of the policies and hence the renewal was kept pending and therefore the complainants arranged Rs.8,000/- and requested for renewal of the policies for a further period of six months from 1-3-2001. The complainants submitted that in spite of their request, opposite party did not furnish the renewal endorsements to them and as such they again called the Development Officer of the opposite eparty twice and ultimately the endorsements were delivered to their relatives, who forwarded the same to U.S.A. and were received by them on 8-5-2001. The complainants submitted that there was abnormal delay in issuing the endorsements and the endorsement relating to complainant No.1 mentions as 052100/46/30633, endorsement effected from 1-3-2001, policy expiring on 1-3-2001 and date of application mentioned as 28-1-2001 and also mentions receipt of extra premium of Rs.19,110/- and service tax of Rs.955/- and cause of endorsement is overseas medi claim insurance coverage. The endorsement relating to complainant No.2 mentions as 052100/46/30632, endorsement effected from 1-3-2001, policy expiring on 1-3-2001 and date of application mentioned as 28-1-2001 and also mentions receipt of extra premium of Rs.16,970/- and service tax of Rs.848/- and cause of endorsement is overseas medi claim insurance coverage. The complainants submitted that opposite party ought to have refused the additional amount, if it had no intention to renew the policies and submitted that the endorsements received by them are quite against the real facts and intention and in violation of the aims and object of the scheme and mention that no insurance coverage was available from 2-3-2001. The complainants submit that hoping that the policies will be renewed, they got the visa extended but on account of deliberate lapses on the part of opposite party, they were constrained to cut short their programme and return to India and thus were deprived of their holiday. The complainants submit that the opposite party collected the premiums from them to renew for six months from 1-3-2001 and as such the policies ought to have been renewed till 1-9-2001 as per the premium collected by them. The complainants, therefore, got issued a legal notice dated 24-9-2001 to opposite party for which no reply was given. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/- which the complainants incurred towards telephone charges, to refund the premium amount of Rs.37,853/- with interest at 15% p.a. from 1-3-2001 till the date of payment together with compensation of Rs.75,000/- and costs.
Opposite party filed counter and submitted that the complainants did not even sign on the proposal form to make out policies in their favour and submitted that any clerical mistake that would have occurred while issuing any policy was never a ground for repudiating any claim made by the policy holder. Opposite party submitted that the policies issued are valid for 180 days and the policy came into effect from the date of realization of the cheque and in the present case, the complainant initially failed to arrange for the amount to cover the premium and it is only later that the amounts were advance and the policy has come into effect from the date the amounts were received. Opposite party further submitted that the policy issued on 1-9-2000 is valid for 180 days and expires on 1-3-2001 and renewal made with effect from 3-3-2001 on the payment and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A10 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainants preferred this appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellants in his grounds of appeal submitted that the order of the District Forum is against the natural justice, equity and good conscience and failed to appreciate the over whelming evidence adduced by the appellants. He also submitted that the District Forum erred in holding that there is no deficiency of service on behalf of the respondent. He further submitted that when the respondent having accepted the amount, ought to have issued endorsements properly as required by the appellants.
The learned counsel for the respondent sought to sustain the order passed by the District Forum. He submitted that the appellants initially failed to arrange for the amount to cover the premium and later the amounts were advanced and the endorsements were issued and that if a clerical mistake occurred, while issuing the policies, it was never a ground for repudiating any claim.
We have gone through the material on record. Admittedly the appellants were issued medi claim insurance under Videsh Yatra Mitra Policy Nos.762311/2000 and 762312/2000 dated 28-8-2000 valid from 3-9-2000 to 1-3-2001. The appellants addressed a letter 29-1-2001 for renewal of both the policies by enclosing a cheque for Rs.30,000/- and after payment of the shortfall amount of Rs.8,000/- the endorsements were issued. It is the case of the appellants that there was abnormal delay in issuing the endorsements as the amount was sent on 28-1-2001 and were issued for a wrong period as shown below:
Endorsement effected From: 01/3/2001
Policy expiring on :01/3/2001.
No coverage on 2-3-2001.
instead of Endorsement effected to be from:01/3/2001 and Policy expiring on 01/9/2001 due to which, they were compelled to cut short their programme and return to India. It is pertinent to note that the appellants by letter dated 10-5-2001 brought this fact to the notice of the respondent but the respondent failed to correct the said mistake. We find force in the contention of the appellants that the renewal endorsements were issued wrongly. Moreover, when the renewal endorsements were for the period from 1-3-2001 to 1-9-2001, there is no meaning to state that there is no coverage on 2-3-2001 and when the mistake that had crept in the endorsements was brought to their notice by the appellants by letter dated 10-5-2001, the respondent failed to correct the same having collected an amount of Rs.37,853/-, which is clear deficiency of service, for which the appellants had to cut short their programme and return to India. It is on record that the appellants brought this error to the notice of the respondent on 10-5-2001 and the policy, If renewed would be in coverage till 01-9-2001. The appellants addressed a letter only on 10-5-2001 i.e. two months after the endorsement, hence we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to Rs.25,235/- and not the entire amount of Rs.37,853/- which covers a period of six months.
`In the result the appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is set aside and the respondent/opposite party is directed to pay Rs.25,235/- to the appellants within a period of six weeks together with costs of Rs.3,000/-
PRESIDENT. LADY MEMBER.
Jm Dated 11-3-2008
