SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with cost to the complainant for the deficiency of service on their part.
The case of the complainant in brief:
The complainant Mr.O.K.Gangadharan is a retired bank employee of Canara Bank. The 1st OP is involved in the business of insurance and the complainant was insured the personal insurance scheme conducted by 1st OP, and 2nd OP is the hospital in which the complainant’s operation is performed. The complainant was insured under MD India Healthcare services(TPA) with policy No. 251100/50/20/10000379 with MDID card No.MDID 0035971101 . The insurance coverage is Rs.3,00,000/- and the complainant yearly remit Rs. 33,884/- as premium. The complainant was suffered Trans Urethral resection of prostate with features of urinary bladder outlet obstruction and significant RUV and left upper Ureteric calculus (14 mm). Then the complainant was admitted in 2nd OP’s hospital on 1/3/2021. To remove the renal calculus the key hole surgery was done on 1/5/2021 and he was discharged on 3/5/2021. The complainant was handed over the entire documents to 1st Op within the stipulated time. The discharge bill was about Rs.77,754/-. The 1st OP was agreed to pay the entire amount of discharge bill. The 1st OP had collected an amount of Rs.33,884/- from the complainant yearly as their insurance premium. The insurance covering the entire hospital expenses also. But after transferring the entire documents the 1st OP is not ready to pay the amount and also they want additional documents from 2nd OP. Then the complainant collected all the documents from the hospital and transferred to 1st OP and nothing left with them. But the 1st OP is not ready to pay the hospital bill. The act of 1st OP, the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss. So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of 1st OP. Hence the complaint.
After filing the complaint notice issued to both OPs. 1st OP’ notice shown as “left” and 1st OP is set exparte. 2nd OP is received the notice and filed their version before the commission that the complainant underwent TURP,UR SI lithotripsy for BPH renal calculus on 1/5/2021. He was discharged on 3/5/2021. 2nd OP had given all the documents, bills discharge summary at the time of discharge of patient Mr.O.K.Gangadharan on further request for extra documents. But 2nd OP had given all the documents required by the patient duly signed for the purpose of insurance claim. So there is no deficiency or anything that warrant cause of action for the complainant against this 1st OP. So there is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of 2nd OP also .
On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following issues were framed for considerations
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
- Relief and cost.
The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW 1 and Exts.A1 &A2 marked. On OP’s side no oral or documentary evidence.
Issue No.1:
After the death of complainant the legal heirs of complainant filed the impleading petition IA 303/2022 dtd.19/10/2022 before the commission. The IA NO.303/2022 allowed and the complainant’s daughter Vijnha(4th petitioner) adduced evidence before the commission by submitting her chief affidavit in lieu of her chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and she was examined as PW1 . The documents Exts.A1 & A2 were marked on her part to substantiate her case. According to PW1 as per Ext.A1 document the discharge bill, the total amount incurred for the 2nd OP hospital is Rs.60,250/-. In Ext.A2 is the claim form for health insurance policy of Mr.O.K Gangadharan. But OP’s side except the version of 2nd OP, no evidence and documents produced by 1st OP. OP.NO.1 has no steps taken to prove their case also. The act of OPs the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss. So we hold that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of 1st opposite party. Hence the issue No.1 found in favour of the complainant and answered accordingly.
Issue No.2& 3:
As discussed above the complainant, Gangadharan(late) had remit Rs.33,884/- as premium yearly. As per the discharge bill (Ext.A1) the complainant incurred Rs.60,250/- as the hospital expenses. The insurance coverage include the entire hospital expenses also. But the 1st OP not ready to pay the amount. So the complainant is entitled to get the hospital expenses Rs.60,250/- along with Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost. Thus the issue No.2&3 are also accordingly answered.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the 1st opposite party to pay Rs.60,250/- as the hospital expenses along with Rs.15000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order. In default the amount of Rs.60,250/- caries 9% interest per annum from the date of order till realization . Failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts:
A1- Discharge Bill
A2- Insurance claim form
PW1-Vijnha(4th complainant)
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR