State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
New India Assurance Company Limited vs Vikram Goyal on 4 October, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
CHANDIGARH.
1.First Appeal No.99 of 2017 Date of institution : 13.02.2017 Date of decision : 04.10.2017 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, 7 Gulabi Bagh, G.T. Road, Moga, through its Manager Tarsem Chand, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.36-37, Section 17-A, Chandigarh.
.......Appellant-Opposite Party No.1 Versus
1. Vikram Goyal, aged 24 years, son of Shri Ashwani Goyal son of Shri Braham Dutt Goyal, resident of 3, Green Park, Duneke, G.T. Road, Moga, District Moga, Punjab.
........Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. Raksha TPA Private Limited, Brar Complex, 2nd Floor, Dugri Road, Model Town, Ludhiana.
........Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2
2. First Appeal No.105 of 2017 Date of institution : 15.02.2017 Date of decision : 04.10.2017 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, 7 Gulabi Bagh, G.T. Road, Moga, through its Manager Tarsem Chand, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.36-37, Section 17-A, Chandigarh.
.......Appellant-Opposite Party No.1 Versus
1. Vikram Goyal, aged 24 years, son of Shri Ashwani Goyal son of Shri Braham Dutt Goyal, resident of 3, Green Park, Duneke, G.T. Road, Moga, District Moga, Punjab.
........Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. Raksha TPA Private Limited, Brar Complex, 2nd Floor, Dugri Road, Model Town, Ludhiana.
........Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 First Appeal No.99 of 2017 2 First Appeals against the orders dated 9.11.2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Present:-
For the appellant : Shri Vinod Gupta, Advocate. For respondent No.1: Shri P.K. Kataria, Advocate. For respondent No.2: Service dispensed with vide order dated 18.4.2017.
JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT:
Both the above mentioned appeals are being disposed of by a common order as identical questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals and the parties are also same. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from First Appeal No.99 of 2017.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party No.1-Insurance Company against the order dated 9.11.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga (in short, "the District Forum"), whereby the complaint filed by Vikram Goyal, respondent No.1/complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was allowed with ₹3,000/- as litigation expenses and the appellant/opposite party No.1 was directed to pay the mediclaim of respondent No.1/complainant to the tune of ₹4,59,321/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from 7.12.2015 when they repudiated the claim, vide letter Ex.OP-1/6 till realization.
3. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum.First Appeal No.99 of 2017 3
Facts of the Complaint:
4. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant along with his father Shri Ashwani Goyal had been getting himself insured under Mediclaim policy continuously with opposite party No.1-Insurance Company from the last 7-8 years and consequently from the last three years, the complainant along with his father got himself insured under medi-claim policy No.36110034130100000094 for the period from 16.10.2013 upto 15.10.2014 for ₹2 lakh, thereafter insured, vide policy No.36110034142500000074 from 16.10.2014 to 15.10.2015 for ₹2 lakh and thereafter the complainant was also individually insured, vide Policy No.36110034152500000034 for the period from 20.07.2015 to 19.07.2016 for further ₹8 lakh in addition to ₹2 lakh and all these policies covered mediclaim of the complainant to the tune of ₹10 lakh. The policies in question were cashless policies. It is further averred that during the currency of the insurance policies the complainant felt uneasiness due to severe pain in his abdomen and rushed to Dr. Gomti Thapar Hospital, G.T. Road, Moga on 12.8.2015, where the treating Doctor advised necessary tests and the same were got conducted from Jaswal Diagnostic Centre, Dutt Road, Moga and Apolo Diagnostics Labs., Moga. However, after initial medication, the complainant was referred to Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana, on the same night. The complainant spent ₹4,800/- at Dr. Gomti Thapar Hospital, Moga, on hospitalization and medical bills etc. On the next date i.e. on 13.8.2015 after admission at Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, First Appeal No.99 of 2017 4 Ludhiana, the uncle of the complainant informed opposite party No.1-Insurance Company in writing about the hospitalization of the complainant and the same was acknowledged by it on 13.8.2015.
However, opposite party No.1-Insurance Company did not provide the facility and service regarding cashless policy. The complainant remained hospitalized in Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana, from 13.8.2015 to 9.9.2015 and spent ₹4,54,521/- on his treatment. Besides this, he also spent ₹4,800/- during his admission at Dr. Gomti Thapar Hospital, Moga, on 12.8.2015. The complainant also spent an amount of ₹1,50,000/- on his routine follow up/check up in the treating Hospital. It is further averred that after discharge, the complainant submitted bills with opposite party No.1-Insurance Company for the reimbursement of his medical expenses and completed all the relevant formalities. Opposite party No.1- Insurance Company appointed opposite party No.2-TPA to investigate the claim, who accordingly investigated the claim. Thereafter the complainant made so many visits to opposite parties and requested to reimburse his mediclaim. However, the opposite parties repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant without assigning any reasonable cause mentioning clause 4.4.6 of the policy, whereas the said clause was not applicable to the present case. Moreover, no such terms and conditions were ever supplied to the complainant at the time of issuance of the policies. Opposite party No.2-TPA was not legally competent to decide the claim of the complainant as there was no contract of the complainant with opposite party No.2-TPA, who is yes-man of opposite party No.1- First Appeal No.99 of 2017 5 Insurance Company and had no legal right to decide the fate of the claim of the complainant. Due to non-payment of the genuine and legal mediclaim the complainant suffered mental tension and harassment.
Defence of Opposite Party No.1-Insurance Company:
5. Upon notice, opposite party No.1-Insurance Company appeared and filed reply taking certain preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. The complainant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The complaint is pre-mature.
The claim is not repudiated by opposite party No.1-Insurance Company till date. No cause of action arose to the complainant against opposite party No.1-Insurance Company. The complainant has not come to the District Forum with clean hands. He has concealed, suppressed and misstated the material facts from the District Forum. The true facts are that the complainant purchased a mediclaim policy No.36110034142500000074 for the period from 16.10.2014 to 15.10.2015 for ₹2 lakh and a mediclaim policy No.36110034152500000034 for the period from 20.07.2015 to 19.07.2016 for ₹8 lakh. As per the claim form, the complainant was admitted in DMC Hospital on 13.8.2015 and was discharged on 9.9.2015. After receiving the claim, opposite party No.1-Insurance Company appointed opposite party No.2-TPA to investigate the claim and to give its opinion and observations, who requested the complainant and his father to supply the documents but neither the First Appeal No.99 of 2017 6 complainant nor his father supplied the required documents. Opposite party No.2, vide its letter dated 7.12.2015 gave its observation and opinion to the following effect:-
"On perusal of the claim documents, it is observed that the patient is diagnosed with multiple Substance Abuse, Acute pancreatitis with Pesudocyst Pancreas, RT Hand Cellulitis with GTCS (?
Withdrawal/?Metabolic) managed conservatively. But as per clause no.4.4.6 of the policy terms and conditions, this ailment falls under the permanent exclusions and any treatment related to this ailment (use of multiple drugs) or its complications is non- payable."
It is further averred that opposite party No.2-TPA only gave its opinion regarding the claim, therefore, no cause of action arose to the complainant to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant took insurance policy No.36110034142500000074 for the period 16.10.2014 to 15.10.2015 for ₹2,00,000/- and mediclaim policy No.36110034152500000034 for the period 20.7.015 to 19.7.2016 for ₹8,00,000/-. It is averred that opposite party No.1-Insurance Company supplied the terms and conditions of the insurance policy to the complainant and his father. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.
6. Opposite party No.2-TPA did not appear before the District Forum despite service and, as such, was proceeded against ex parte. First Appeal No.99 of 2017 7 Finding of the District Forum:
7. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, allowed the complaint, vide impugned order. Hence, this appeal.
8. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case. Contentions of the Parties:
9. It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party No.1 that after receiving the claim an expert was appointed to verify the genuineness of the claim i.e. opposite party No.2, who is a Third Party Administrator and it is also mentioned in the policy that the Raksha TPA would decide the case. The said TPA, vide letter dated 7.12.2015, gave its observation and opinion that the claim of the complainant was not payable under exclusion clause 4.4.6 of the Policy, as the ailment of the complainant falls under permanent exclusions and treatment relating to that ailment or its complications was not payable under the policy as the same was due to use of intoxicating and drugs/alcohol. Moreover, opposite party No.2-TPA requested a number of times to the complainant and his father to supply the documents in regard to the ailment but neither the complainant nor his father supplied the required documents. It has further been argued that exclusion clause 4.4.6 was not in regard to the use of drugs or alcohol but the same was in regard to the use of multiple drugs (medicine) and its complication was not payable under condition No.4.4.6 of the Policy. First Appeal No.99 of 2017 8 The District Forum has failed to appreciate all these facts and has passed an illegal and erroneous order. The same is liable to be set aside.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the District Forum has passed a well reasoned order after duly appreciating the pleadings and the evidence on record. He has further argued that opposite party No.2- TPA has no concern with the complainant and opposite party No.1- Insurance Company has no legal right to repudiate the claim of the complainant on the advice of opposite party No.2-TPA. The opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant on false grounds, which amounts to deficiency in service and adoption of mal trade practice on their part. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum and the same is liable upheld. Consideration of Contentions:
11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.
12. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, the following questions arise for determination, for disposal of these appeals:-
i) Whether the claim of the complainant was legally and validly repudiated by the opposite parties on the ground that the disease from which the complainant was suffering falls under permanent exclusion i.e. clause 4.4.6 of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy?First Appeal No.99 of 2017 9
ii) Whether TPA is competent to repudiate the claim of the complainant?
13. Admittedly the complainant along with his father had been obtaining mediclaim policies for the last 7-8 years, Ex.C-2 and Ex.C3, from opposite party No.1-Insurance Company and lastly he along with his father had taken insurance policy for the period from 16.10.2014 to 15.10.2015 for a sum of ₹2,00,000/-, Ex.C-4. The complainant individually also purchased insurance policy for the period from 20.7.2015 to 19.7.2016 for a sum of ₹8,00,000/-, Ex.C-5. As such, the complainant was covered under mediclaim policies with opposite party No.1-Insurance Company for a total sum insured of ₹10,00,000/-. Opposite party No.1-Insurance Company never supplied terms and conditions of the policies to the complainant or his father. During the currency of the insurance policies the complainant felt uneasiness due to severe pain in his abdomen and was admitted to Dr. Gomti Thapar Hospital, G.T. Road, Moga, on 12.8.2015. However, after initial medication, the complainant was referred to Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana on the night of 12.8.2016. He remained admitted in that Hospital from 13.8.2015 to 9.9.2015 and spent ₹4,54,521/- on his treatment in that Hospital besides ₹4,800/- at Dr. Gomti Thapar Hospital, Moga, totaling ₹4,59,321/-. Copies of the Discharge Summaries are Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-9 and copies of medical prescriptions and hospital bills are Ex.C-11 to Ex.C-108. The complainant also spent an amount of ₹1,50,000/- for his follow up/check up treatment. The complainant submitted all the bills and other documents to opposite party No.1- First Appeal No.99 of 2017 10 Insurance Company for reimbursement of his medical expenses and a copy of the claim form is Ex.C-6. Opposite party No.1-Insurance Company referred the claim to opposite party No.2-TPA for investigation, who, vide letter dated 7.12.2015, Ex.OP1/6, repudiated the claim by observing as under:-
"Observation and Opinion.
On perusal of claim documents, it is observed that the patient is diagnosed with MULTIPLE SUBSTANCE ABUSE, ACUTE PANCREATITIS WITH PSEUDOCYCST PANCREAS RT.
HAND CELLULITIS WITH GTCS (?WITHDRAWAL?
METABOLIC) managed conservatively. But as per clause
no.4.4.6 of the policy terms and conditions, this ailment falls under the permanent exclusions and any treatment related to this ailment (use of multiple drugs) or its complications is non-
payable. Hence the claim is non-payable.
MULTIPLESUBSTANCE ABUSE, ACUTE PANCREATITIS WITH PSEUDOCYST PANCREAS, RT. HAND CELLULITIS WITH GTCS (?WITHDRAWL ? METABOLIC).
As per the clause 4.4.6 CONVALESCENCE, GENERAL DEBILITY, RUN DOWN CONDITION OR REST CURE, OBESITY TREATMENT AND ITS COMPLICATION, CONGINITAL EXTERNAL DISEASE/DEFECTS OR ANOMALIES, TREAMENT RELATING TO ALL PSYCHIATRIC AND PSYCROSOMATIC DISORDERS, INFERTILITY, STERILITY, USE OF INTOXICATING DRUGS/ALCOHOL, USE OF TOBACCO LEADING TO CANCER."First Appeal No.99 of 2017 11
A perusal of the repudiation letter Ex.OP-1/6 reveals that the same was issued by opposite party No.2-TPA. Except the above mentioned letter nothing has been placed on record by opposite party No.1-Insurance Company, vide which the claim has been considered and rejected by it.
14. Health Services to be provided by the TPA have been specified in IRDAI (THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATORS-HEALTH SERVICES) REGULATIONS, 2016, issued vide Notification F. No.IRDAI/REG/5/117/2016, Dated 14.3.2016 and the same read as under:-
"Health services by TPA
3. (1) A TPA may render the following services to an insurer under an agreement in connection with health insurance business:
a. servicing of claims under health insurance policies by way of pre-authorization of cashless treatment or settlement of claims other than cashless claims or both, as per the underlying terms and conditions of the respective policy and within the framework of the guidelines issued by the insurers for settlement of claims.
b. servicing of claims for Hospitalization cover, if any, under Personal Accident Policy and domestic travel policy. c. facilitating carrying out of pre-insurance medical examinations in connection with underwriting of health insurance policies:
Provided that a TPA can extend this service for life insurance policies also d. health services matters of foreign travel policies and health policies issued by Indian insurers covering medical First Appeal No.99 of 2017 12 treatment or hospitalization outside India e. servicing of health services matters of foreign travel policies issued by foreign insurers for policyholders who are travelling to India:
Provided that such services shall be restricted to the health services required to be attended to during the course of the visit or the stay of the policyholders in India. f. servicing of non-insurance healthcare schemes as mentioned in Regulation 22 (3) of these Regulations g. any other services as may be mentioned by the Authority. (2) While performing the services as indicated at Regulation 3 (1) of these regulations, a TPA shall not a. Directly make payment in respect of claims b. Reject or repudiate any of the claims directly c. Handle or service claims other than hospitalization cover under a personal accident policy d. Procure or solicit insurance business directly or indirectly e. Offer any service directly to the policyholder or insured or to any other person unless such service is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy contract and the agreement entered into in terms of these regulations. (3) A TPA can provide health services to more than one insurer. Similarly an insurer may engage more than one TPA for providing health services to its policyholders or claimants."
15. A perusal of Regulation 3(2)(b) of the above health services to be provided by TPA specifically reveals that while performing the services as indicated at Regulation 3(1)(b) of these Regulations, a TPA shall not reject or repudiate any of the claims directly. In the present case the claim has been repudiated by opposite party No.2- TPA, vide letter dated 7.12.2015, Ex.OP-1/6, which is in violation of First Appeal No.99 of 2017 13 the above said Regulations of the IRDAI. The duties and responsibilities of the Insurance Companies and TPA were also discussed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in Public Interest Litigation No.12 of 2011 (Gaurang Dinesh Damani vs. Union of India & Ors.) in orders dated 5.3.2015 and 13.8.2015. It is a common practice that the TPA gives daily targets to its staff for approving claims, where they sanction total money in a day for and all the claims should not exceed particular limit. The hospital bill cannot be settled on the basis of targets fixed by the Insurance Companies. Otherwise, the TPAs have no authority to reject the claim. Such power lies, exclusively with the Insurance Companies. The TPA can only process the claim and forward the same to the Insurance Company and the competent authority of the Insurance Company is to decide about the same.
16. Thus, I am of the opinion that the claim of the complainant was illegally and arbitrarily rejected by the TPA, against the aforesaid instructions of the IRDA. Since the Insurance Companies use the PPN or hospitals empanelled by the TPA and, resultantly, TPA ask the hospital to give commission on every claim, if they want to be enrolled in PPN. This has been observed by the regulators. Resultantly, the patients/consumers are over-charged by the hospitals, since they have to pay some commissions to TPAs to use the power on behalf of the Insurance Companies. They have no right to solicit business, like agents for the Insurance Companies. Their only job is to serve and process the claims. Accepting and rejecting First Appeal No.99 of 2017 14 the claims at their own by the TPAs is illegal, arbitrary, null & void and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Hence the answer to question no.(ii) posed above is given in the negative.
17. The District Forum while allowing the complaint filed by the complainant has observed in para no.10 of the impugned order as under:-
"10. We have thoroughly gone through the file, evidence and arguments led by ld. counsel for both the parties. It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant along with his father continuously purchasing the mediclaim insurance policy from opposite party No.1 for the last so many years. It is further admitted that the complainant remained admitted in the hospital from 13.8.2015 to 9.9.2015. It is further admitted case of the parties that the complainant lodged the claim for reimbursement of his medical expenses with opposite party No.1. The case of opposite party No.1 that after receiving the claim form, they appointed opposite party No.2 to investigate the claim and to give his opinion and observation and vide letter dated 7.12.2015, opposite party No.2 gave his observation and opinion that the claim of the complainant is not payable under exclusion clause 4.4.6 of the policy terms and conditions and the ailment of the complainant falls under permanent exclusions and treatment relating to this ailment or its complications is not payable under policy. First Appeal No.99 of 2017 15 Copy of letter dated 7.12.2015 is OP-1/6. Thus, main stress of the opposite parties is that the present ailment of the complainant is due to use of intoxicating and Drugs/Alcohol. The complainant produces his discharge summaries issued by the treating hospital Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-9, where the doctor diagnosed the complainant with Multiple Substance Abuses with Acute Pancreatitis with Pseudocyst Pacreas with Rt. Head Cellulitis with GTCS (?Withdrawal ? Metablic). In this discharge summary the treating doctor nowhere stated that the complainant is habitual of taking any intoxicating Drugs/Alcohol or the present ailment of the complainant is only due to use of intoxicating and Drugs/Alcohol etc. The opposite parties have also failed to produce any evidence in their support to prove that ailment of the complainant is due to use of intoxicating and Drugs/Alcohol or the complainant is habitual of Drugs/Alcohol etc. which caused present ailment. Admittedly the complainant was insured with opposite parties under mediclaim policy for the last so many years continuously. The case of the complainant is that opposite parties never supplied any terms and conditions of the policy along with policy schedule to them and now on the basis of false exclusion clause they want to avoid the payment of genuine claim of the complainant. On this point, our Apex Court in case titled as M/s Modern First Appeal No.99 of 2017 16 Insulators Ltd. v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.-2000(1) CPR 93 (Supreme Court) 242 held that clauses which are not explained to complainant are not binding upon the insured and are required to be ignored. Furthermore, it is generally seen that Insurance Companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline the claims. He further placed reliance on citation 2008(3) RCR (Civil) Page 111 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Usha Yadav & Others wherein our Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that it seems that Insurance Companies are only interested in earning premiums and find ways and means to decline the claims. The conditions, which generally are hidden need to be simplified so that these are easily understood by a person at the time of buying any policy. The Insurance Companies in such cases, rely upon the clauses of agreement which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining the policy. He further put reliance upon citation 2012(1) RCR (Civil) 901 titled as IFFCO TOKYO General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Gurgaon and others, wherein our Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court held that Contract Act, 1872-Insuracne Act, 1938-contract among unequal-Validity-Mediclaim Policy-Exclusion Clause-Pre- First Appeal No.99 of 2017 17 existing disease-Exclusion clause is standard form of contracts-When bargaining power of the party is unequal and consumer has no real freedom to contract-Courts can strike down such unfair and unreasonable clause in a contract where parties are not equal in bargaining power."
I do not find any illegality or perversity in the aforesaid finding of the District Forum. I have also carefully gone through the records of the case and I am not able to lay my hands on any such document or evidence led by the opposite parties to prove that the ailment of the complainant was only due to the use of intoxicating and Drugs/Alcohols etc. Therefore, it is held that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated illegally.
18. In view of my above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed; however, with no order as to costs.
19. The appellant/opposite party No.1 had deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to the parties. The complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard.
First Appeal No.99 of 2017 18First Appeal No.105 of 2017:
20. In this case, the facts are similar as in the above mentioned appeal. However, it is averred that after discharge from the Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana on 9.9.2015, the complainant again felt uneasiness and he was again brought to the said Hospital, where treating doctor advised him to re-admit in the Hospital. Consequently the complainant remained admitted in the said Hospital from 24.9.2015 to 5.10.2015 and information with regard to the same was given to opposite party No.1-Insurance Company. However, opposite party No.1-Insurance Company did not provide the facility and service regarding cashless policy. The complainant spent ₹3,79,225/- on his treatment from 24.9.2015 to 5.10.2015 in that Hospital and also spent ₹1,50,000/- on his routine follow up/check up. The claim submitted by the complainant for reimbursement of medical expenses to opposite party No.1- Insuracne Company was referred by it to opposite party No.-2-TPA for investigation, which repudiated the same, vide letter dated 7.12.2015 Ex.OP1/9 on the same ground as in the above appeal. Opposite party No.1-Insurance Company took the same plea in its reply as in the aforesaid appeal. The District Forum after appreciating the pleadings and the evidence on record, allowed the complaint with ₹3,000/- as litigation expenses and directed opposite party No.1-Insurance Company to pay the mediclaim of the complainant to the tune of ₹3,79,225/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from 7.12.2015, when they repudiated the claim of the complainant, vide letter Ex.OP-1/9 till realization. Hence this appeal First Appeal No.99 of 2017 19 by opposite party No.1-Insurance Company for setting aside the impugned order dated 9.11.2016.
21. For the reasons recorded in FA No.99 of 2017, this appeal (FA No.105 of 2017) is also dismissed in the same terms.
22. The appellant/opposite party No.1 had deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to the parties. The complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard.
23. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT October 04, 2017 Bansal