State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
O I Co vs Munni Devi on 25 August, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 First Appeal No. A/2013/991 ( Date of Filing : 07 May 2013 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District State Commission) 1. O I Co a ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Munni Devi a ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Rajendra Singh PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. SUSHIL KUMAR JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 25 Aug 2023 Final Order / Judgement Oral State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P., Lucknow. Appeal No. 991 of 2013 The oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, Division Office, 2nd Floor Hatua Market, Lahurabir, Varanasi. ...Appellant. Versus 1- Smt. Munni Devi, adult w/o Lalbarat, R/o Akoda-Kla, Post Office, Akoda-Kla Post Office, District, Chandauli, U.P. . 2- Chief Medical Officer, District Hospital, Chandauli, District Chandauli. ..Respondents. Present:- Hon'ble Mr. Rajendra Singh, Presiding Member.
Hon'ble Mr. Sushil Kumar, Member.
Mr. Waquar Hashim, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. Manish Kumar Srivastava, Advocate for respondent no.1.
None for the respondent no.2.
Date: 25.8.2023 JUDGMENT Per Mr. Rajendra Singh, Member: The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.9.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Chandauli in complaint case no.17 of 2010.
The brief facts of the appeal are that, that the complainant Smt. Munni Devi who alleged that under a family planning scheme she opted for sterilization operation on 5.1.2007 at Primary Health Center, Chandauli, District Chandauli. After six months of the above said operation, the complainant was examined by the doctor and she delivered baby. Apparently it looks that the complaint is baseless and has been filed for ulterior motives. The complainant did not allege any deficiency in service.
The insurance company has submitted its written statement. Since the claimant has not informed to the Chief Medical Officer or Quality Assurance Committee in regard to pregnancy/delivery and the Quality Assurance Committee has not recommended her case for compensation to the Oriental Insurance Company. Hence, the Oriental Insurance Company is not liable for any payment. The insurance policy was purchased by the Government and not by the complainant. Since no amount has been charged from the complainant, hence, it does not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.
There is nothing on record to show that sterilization operation failed. The impugned judgment and order is not based on material facts and is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Commission may graciously be pleased to set aside the impugned judgment and order and to allow the appeal.
We have heard the counsel for the appellant Sri Waquar Hashim and ld. counsel for the respondent Sri Manish Kumar Srivastava. None appeared for the respondent no.2. We have perused the evidence and pleadings of the case.
After sterilization operation, the complainant become pregnant and she was insured by the insurance company through U.P. Government. She prayed for compensation from the insurance company and the ld. District Commission passed the following order.
"परिवादिनी मुन्नी देवी का परिवाद पत्र रू0 28,000/- (रू0 अठ्ठाईस हजार मात्र) की धनराशि के लिये विपक्षी सं0 1 दि ओरियण्टल इंश्योरेंस कम्पनी के खिलाफ स्वीकार किया जाता है। विपक्षी सं0 1 को निर्देशित किया जाता है कि वह उपरोक्त धनराशि एक माह में अदा करें। ऐसा न करने पर परिवादिनी मुन्नी देवी उपरोक्त धनराशि पर निर्णय की तिथि से आठ प्रतिशत साधारण वार्षिक ब्याज की दर से ब्याज भी पाने की अधिकारी होगी"
It is clear that the complainant was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company through U.P. Government but as she was insured by the Oriental Insurance Company, so the Oriental Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation as directed by the ld. District Commission. After perusal of the circumstances and facts, we are of the opinion that there is no illegality in the judgment of the ld. District Commission. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
ORDER The appeal is dismissed.
If any amount is deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of this appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, may be remitted to the ld. District Forum concerned as per rules for satisfying the decree, alongwith accrued interest upto date.
The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.
Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.
(Sushil Kumar) (Rajendra Singh) Member Presiding Member Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court. Consign to record. (Sushil Kumar) (Rajendra Singh) Member Presiding Member Dated 25.8.2023 Jafri, PA I Court 2 [HON'BLE MR. Rajendra Singh] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. SUSHIL KUMAR] JUDICIAL MEMBER