DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 390 of 16.9.2016
Decided on: 9.11.2017
Mehak Grewal aged about 37 years son of S.Umar Ranjit Singh, resident of village Naina Khurd, Tehsil and District Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co.Limited, Unit 401, 4th floor, Sangam Complex, 127, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East Mumbai-400059 through its Managing Director.
2. E Mediatek, Corporate Office, Plot No.557, Udyog Vihar, Phase V, Gurgaon through its Managing Director.
3. Indian Overseas Bank, Urban Estate Branch (Phase 2), Patiala through its Branch Manager.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Amandeep Singh,Advocate,counsel for complainant.
Sh.Amit Gupta, Advocate, counsel for
opposite party No.1.
Opposite parties No.2&3 ex-parte.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Mehak Grewal, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To pay Rs.3,00,000/-, alongwith interest @18% per annum from 5.1.2015 till realization
- To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment
- To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses
-
-
-
-
Thereafter, vide letter dated 6.2.2015, complainant applied for reimbursement of medical bills. He was requested to submit thedocuments i.e. duly signed claim form, all the investigation reports and the exact date of diagnosis of the hypertension certified by the treated doctor,vide letter dated 4.3.2015. Reminder dated 20.3.2015 to this effect was also issued to the complainant but he failed to provide the requisite documents. Thus, the claim of the complainant was closed vide letter dated 30.3.2015 for want of clarification and there was no deficiency of service on the part of Op no.1.After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
-
-
The ld.counsel for OP no.1 tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Piyush Shanker alongwith documents Ex.OP1 to OP12 and closed the evidence.
None appeared on behalf of OP no.3 for leading evidence and it was accordingly proceeded against exparte.
-
-
-
10. From the perusal of the policy document,Ex.C1, it is evident that the complainant was insured for the sum assured of Rs.3,00,000/-.Therefore, the OPs no.1&2 are liable to pay the said amount to the complainant alongwith interest w.e.f 30.3.2015 i.e. the date of closing of the case. They are also liable to pay compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant alongwith litigation expenses. In the complaint, it is stated that the complainant is having an account with Op no.3, and has purchased the policy in question from OP no.1 through it. Since neither any specific allegation has been leveled against OP no.3,nor it has been proved, therefore, the complaint filed against it is also liable to be dismissed.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the complaint against Op no.3 and allowed the same against OPs no.1&2 with a direction to pay the sum assured of Rs.3,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from 30.3.2015 i.e. the date of closing of the claim case of the complainant till realization. OPs no.1&2 are further directed to pay Rs.4000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant alongwith Rs.4000/- litigation expenses. The OPs No.1&2 are further directed to comply the said order within a period of 45 days from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties under the rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED: 9 .11. 2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
