State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Amber Gupta vs The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd & Anr. on 5 May, 2016
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).
Appeal No.FA/2016/14
Instituted on : 28.01.2016
Amber Gupta, Aged about 46 years,
S/o Late K.K. Gupta,
R/o : House No.H-11, Sales Tax Colony, Shankar Nagar,
Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant.
Vs.
1. Competent Officer,
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Registered Office - Oriental House, P.B. No.703,
A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi -110002
2. Competent Officer,
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Regional Office - R.K. Plaza, Ring Road No.1,
Pachpedi Naka, Raipur,
Tehsil and District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents.
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MISS HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: -
Shri N.K. Sahu, for the appellant.
Shri N.K. Thakur, for the respondents.
ORDER
Dated : 05/05/2016 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.12.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.909/2011.
// 2 // By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the appellant (complainant).
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that since last 10 years, the appellant (complainant) was regular customer of the respondents (OPs) was obtaining benefit of the service and facility provided by the respondents (OPs). The appellant (complainant) purchased Happy Family Floater Policy No.191300/48/2011/2256 on 12.02.2011 for the sum assured Rs.4,00,000/-, which was effective for the period from 15.02.2011 to 14.02.2012 and paid premium of Rs.12,279/-. On 13.04.2011 all of a sudden some health problem occurred to the appellant (complainant) due to which the appellant (complainant) was admitted in Escorts Heart Care Centre, Raipur where his Coronary Angiography was conducted thereafter PTCA, Stent to Zero M 2 (Angioplasty) was conducted. The wife of the appellant (complainant) namely Smt. Namrata Gupta gave intimation regarding admission of the appellant (complainant) in the hospital to the respondents (OPs). because as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy intimation regarding the same was required to be given within 24 hours. The appellant (complainant) was admitted in the hospital from 13.04.2011 to 19.04.2011 and was taking treatment and on 19.04.2011 at about 7 to 8 P.M. he was discharged from the hospital. The appellant (complainant) submitted claim along with full particulars of the medical expenses and documents, to the tune of Rs.3,07,177/- before // 3 // the respondents (OPs) on 24.05.2011. The respondents (OPs) only paid a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- to the appellant (complainant) and did not provide any information regarding the remaining amount, whereas the appellant (complainant) was entitled to receive a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- under the insurance policy. The appellant (complainant) vide letter dated 24.05.2011 informed the respondents (OPs) regarding the unpaid claim amount and the respondents (OPs) sent reply thereof to the appellant (complainant) on 10.06.2011 through which the appellant (complainant) came to know that the respondents (OPs) have illegally made deduction in the claim of the appellant (complainant) and the reason for the above has been mentioned hypertension and Angiography conducted in the year 2007, whereas the appellant (complainant) had provided all information at the time of obtaining policy to the respondents (OPs) and the Angiography of the appellant (complainant) was conducted in the year 2000 in Escorts Heart Care and not in the year 2007 and on the above date the appellant (complainant) was completely healthy and he was not suffering from any heart disease. Thus, the respondents (OPs) have committed deficiency in service by deducting a sum of Rs.1,28,177/- from the claim amount. The appellant (complainant) sent legal notice through advocate to the respondents (OPs) but even then the respondents (OPs) did not pay above amount to the appellant (complainant). Hence, the appellant (complainant) filed consumer complaint before // 4 // the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs, as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint.
3. The respondents (OPs) filed their written version and averred that the appellant (complainant) has been taking mediclaim policy from 15.02.2007. Initially the appellant (complainant) had taken an individual Mediclaim Policy for the period from 15-02-2007 to 14-02-2008 wherein the individual sum insured for himself and his spouse was Rs.1,75,000, whereas for his sons it was Rs.1,00,000/- each. The said policy got renewed from time to time till 14.02.2010 with no increase in the sum insured. But on 15.02.2010, the appellant (complainant) switched over to a Happy Family Floater Policy and got the sum insured increased from Rs.1,75,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/-. But prior to that the appellant (complainant) had an episode of chest pain and were required to undergo CAG, in the year 2007; and at that time he was detected to be hypertensive; and as per the appellant's (complainant's) own version he has taken claim from the respondents (OPs), at that point of time, and as such he was aware of his heart ailment, prior to switching over to Happy Family Floater Policy, wherein the increase in sum insured was not available for the health condition which was existing prior to the increase in sum insured. On being informed about the appellant's (complainant's) illness on 13.04.2011 and on submission of documents, the respondents (OPs) got them reviewed and found that appellant (complainant) was known // 5 // case of hypertension, dyslipedmia and had undergone CAG in the year 2007, when the sum insured under the then existing policy was Rs.1,75,000/-. Therefore, as per exclusion clause No.4.3 of the policy, in case of subsequent enhancement in the sum insured, the other exclusion clauses namely 4.1 to 4.3 were to apply afresh for the enhanced portion of the sum insured. Thus enhancement in the sum insured from Rs.1,75,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/- therefore, was no available to his present claim, which was consequence of insured's previous health condition. Therefore, the respondents (OPs) were not under any obligation to pay Rs.3,03,177/- against the present claim. The appellant (complainant) was not entitled to claim any amount upto Rs.4,00,000/- in the present Happy Family Floater Policy. The reason for which was duly explained to him and after being satisfied the appellant (complainant) received the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- in full and final settlement of his claim by executing discharge voucher without raising any objection. Subsequent correspondent on his part was simply an afterthought. The appellant (complainant) has not disclosed his health condition at the time of inception of first mediclaim policy. It was only on verification of his documents, it came to the notice of the respondents (OPs) that the appellant (complainant) had some complication related to hypertension, which led him to undergo CAG in the year 2007. It was thus clear from the appellant's (complainant's) documents that he had full knowledge of his health // 6 // condition, prior to increase in sum insured while switching over to Happy Family Floater Policy. The respondents (OPs) have not committed any deficiency in service while paying Rs.1,75,000/- towards appellant's (complainant's) present claim. The appellant (complainant) is not entitled for any amount more than Rs.1,75,000/-, which he has already received in full and final settlement, by the executing discharge voucher, without raising any dispute; and thereby he has been stopped from claiming any further amount, which otherwise also, was not payable under the terms of the existing policy. Any cause of action has not accrued to the appellant (complainant) on the basis of legal notice dated 23.06.2011. The appellant (complainant) has accepted the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- voluntarily and in full and final satisfaction of his claim and as such has waived his right to claim any further amount under the policy. The District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint for want of cause of action. The complaint be dismissed with costs.
4. Learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it by the parties, has dismissed the complaint.
5. The appellant (complainant) has filed documents. Annexure 1 is Policy Schedule for the period from 15.02.2000 to 14.02.2001, Annexure 2 are Discharge Summary, Course in the Hospital, bills and receipts issued by Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre Limited, // 7 // New Delhi, Annexure 3 is Policy Schedule and Receipt for the period 15.02.2001 to 14.02.2002, Annexure 4 is Policy Schedule and Receipt for the period from 15.02.2002 to 14.02.2003, Annexure 5 is Policy Schedule and Receipt for the period from 15.02.2003 to 14.02.2004, Annexure 6 is Policy Schedule and Receipt for the period from 15.02.2007 to 14.02.2008, Annexure 7 is Policy Schedule and Receipt for the period from 15.02.2008 to 14.02.2009, Annexure 8 is Policy Schedule for the period from 15.02.2009 to 14.02.2010, Annexure 9 is Policy Schedule from 15.02.2010 to 14.02.2011, Annexure 10 is Policy Schedule from 15.02.2011 to 14.02.2012, Annexure 11 is Intimation given by Mrs. Namrata Gupta to the Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. regarding hospitalization of her husband Mr. Amber Gupta, Annexure 12 is Discharge Summary of the appellant (complainant) issued by Escorts Heart Centre, Raipur, Annexure 13 is Inpatient Bill issued by Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Ltd, Annexure 14 is Discharge Voucher, Annexure 15 is letter dated 24.05.2011 sent by the appellant (complainant) to the Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Raipur, Annexure 16 is letter dated 10.06.2011 sent by Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Raipur, to the appellant (complainant), Annexure 17 is legal notice sent by Shri Fizi Gwalre, Advocate to the respondents (OPs) on behalf of the appellant (complainant), Annexure 18 and Annexure 19 are postal receipts, // 8 // Annexure 20 is acknowledgement, Annexure 21 is reply dated 13.07.2011 sent by Shri Shishir Bhandarkar, Advocate to the appellant (complainant), Annexure 22 is letter dated 29.07.2011 sent by Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Raipur (C.G.) to Shri Fizi Gwalre, Advocate, Annexure 23 is Policy Schedule for the period from 15.02.2004 to 14.02.2005 and receipt, Annexure 24 is Policy Schedule for the period from 15.02.2006 to 14.02.2007 and receipt, Annexure 25 is Certificate dated 14.09.2013 issued by Dr. Satish Suryawanshi in favour of the appellant (complainant), Annexure 26 is Discharge Summary of Seven Hills Hospital and bills etc, Annexure 27 is Discharge Voucher.
6. The respondents (OPs) have also filed documents. Annexure OP-1 is Policy Schedule for the period from 15.02.2007 to 14.02.2008 along with receipt, Annexure OP-2 is Policy Schedule for the period from 15.02.2010 to 14.02.2011 with terms and conditions of Happy Family Floater Policy, Annexure OP-3 is Discharge Summary of the appellant (complainant) issued by Escorts Heart Centre, Raipur, Annexure OP-4 is letter dated 13.04.2011 sent by Smt. Namrata Gupta to the Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Raipur, Annexure OP-5 is letter dated 02.05.2011 sent by Dolphin Associates to The Divisional Manager, DO-III, Raipur (C.G.), Annexure OP-6 is letter dated 10.06.2011 sent by Divisional Manager, The // 9 // Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Raipur to the appellant (complainant), Annexure OP-7 is Discharge Voucher.
7. Shri N.K. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (complainant) has argued that the appellant (complainant) has obtained Happy Family Floater Policy No.191300/48/2011/2256 for the sum assured Rs.4,00,000/- from the respondents (OPs) and a sum of Rs.12,279/- was paid by the appellant (complainant) towards premium. On 13.04.2011, all of a sudden some health problem occurred to the appellant (complainant) due to which the appellant (complainant) was admitted in Escorts Heart Care Centre, Raipur where his Coronary Angiography was conducted thereafter PTCA Stent to Zero M 2 (Angioplasty) was conducted. Intimation was given by to the respondents (OPs) regarding admission of the appellant (complainant) in the hospital. The appellant (complainant) was admitted in the hospital on from 13.04.2011 to 19.04.2011 and was taking treatment there and he was discharged from the hospital on 19.04.2011 at about 7-8 P.M. Thereafter the appellant (complainant) submitted his claim form along with documents before the respondents (OPs). The respondents (OPs) have only paid a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- and did not provide remaining amount, whereas the appellant (complainant) is entitled to get a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. The respondents (OPs) refused to pay the remaining amount to the appellant (complainant), thus, they committed deficiency in service, // 10 // but learned District Forum did not consider the above aspect and erroneously dismissed the complaint, therefore, impugned order passed by the District Forum, is liable to be set aside.
8. Shri N.K. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondents (OPs) has supported the impugned order passed by the District Forum and submitted that the appellant (complainant) has received a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- from the respondents (OPs) voluntarily in full and final satisfaction of his claim and as such has waived his right to claim any further amount under the policy. He has further argued that the treatment taken the appellant (complainant) comes within exclusion clauses 4.1 to 4.3 of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the appellant (complainant) is not entitled to get any further amount from the respondents (OPs) , therefore, the appeal of the appellant (complainant), is liable to be dismissed.
9. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum.
10. The appellant (complainant) has filed a copy of the insurance policy terms and conditions of the Medi Claim Insurance Policy. In Condition No.4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of the Exclusions, it is mentioned thus :-
"4.1. All diseases/injuries which are pre-existing when the cover incepts for the first time.
4.2. Any disease other than those stated in clause 4.3 contracted by the Insured Person during the first 30 days from the commencement // 11 // date of the policy. The exclusion shall not however, apply if in the opinion of Panel of Medical Practitioners consulted by the company for the purpose, the insured person could not have known of the existence of the Disease or any symptoms or complaints thereof at the time of making the proposal for insurance to the Company. This condition 4.2 shall not however apply in case of the insured person having been covered under this scheme or group insurance scheme with any of the Indian Insurance Companies for a continuous period of preceding 12 months without any break.
4.3. During the first year of the operation of insurance cover, the expenses on treatment of diseases such as Cataract, Benign, Prostatic, Hypertrophy, Hysterectomy for Menorrhagia or Fibromyoma, Hernia, Hydrocele, Congenital Internal diseases, Fistula in anus, piles, Sinusitis and related disorders are not payable. If these diseases are pre-existing at the time of proposal they will not be covered even during subsequent period of renewal too."
11. In the case of Bharathi Knitting Company vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd. (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 704, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus :-
"6.............it was stated that a person who signs a document containing contractual terms is normally bound by them even though he has not read them, and even though he is ignorant of their precise legal effect. But if the document is not signed, being merely delivered to him, then the question arises : whether the terms of the contract were adequately brought to his notice ? The terms of the contract have elaborately been considered and decided. The details thereof are not necessary for us to pursue. It is seen that when a person signs a document which contains certain contractual terms, as rightly pointed out by Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned Senior Counsel, that normally // 12 // parties are bound by such contract; it is for the party to establish exception in a suit. When a party to the contract disputes the binding nature of the singed document, it is for him to prove the terms in the contract or circumstances in which he came to sign the documents need to be established."
12. The appellant (complainant) has filed photocopy of Discharge voucher (Annexure 14), whereas the respondents (OPs) have filed original discharge voucher (Annexure OP-7), wherein it is mentioned that the appellant (complainant) has received a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Five Thousand) only from the respondents (OPs) in full and final satisfaction of his claim. The discharge voucher was signed by the appellant (complainant). In the discharge voucher Claim No.191300/48/2012/11 and Policy No.191300/48/11/2256 have been mentioned, but no date has been mentioned in the discharge voucher. Even the appellant (complainant) signed on revenue stamp but date was not mentioned by the appellant (complainant). Even in the protest letter dated 24.05.2011, the appellant (complainant) did not mention date of execution of the discharge voucher. It appears that the appellant (complainant) deliberately suppressed the date of execution of the discharge voucher and he sent letter to the respondents (OPs) on 24.05.2011. It appears that the appellant (complainant) did not send protest letter to the respondents (OPs) immediately, but he sent protest letter to the respondents (OPs) belatedly, which shows that the appellant (complainant) signed the discharge voucher voluntarily. In // 13 // the above circumstances, it appears that the appellant (complainant) voluntarily executed discharge voucher in full and final satisfaction of his claim and after receiving a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- from the respondents (OPs) and for obtaining more amount from the respondents (OPs), he sent letter to the respondents (OPs).
13. In the case of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills, II (1999) CPJ 10 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "the mere execution of discharge voucher would not always deprive consumer from preferring claim with respect to deficiency in service or consequential benefits arising out of the amount paid in default of service rendered. Despite execution of the discharge voucher, the consumer may be in a position to satisfy the Tribunal or the Commission under the Act that such discharge voucher or receipt had been obtained from him under the circumstances which can be termed as fraudulent or exercise of undue influence or by misrepresentation or the like. If in a given case the consumer satisfies the authority under the Act that the discharge voucher was obtained by fraud, mis-representation, under influence or the like, coercive bargaining compelled by circumstances, the authority before whom the complaint is made would be justified in granting appropriate relief. However, where such discharge voucher is proved to have been obtained under any of the suspicious circumstances noted hereinabove, the Tribunal or the Commission would be justified in granting the appropriate relief under the circumstances of each case. The mere execution of the discharge voucher and // 14 // acceptance of the insurance claim would not estopple insured from making further claim from the insurer but only under the circumstances as noticed earlier."
14. In M/s. Apna Surat Saree Centre v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2016(1) CPR 297 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed that "Complainant cannot raise further claim after signing discharge/settlement voucher in full and final settlement of claim"
15. In Natraj Handlooms Pvt. Ltd. vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. II (2015) CPJ 214 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"8. .....................
No case of coercion is made out by the complainant company, since there is no allegation of committing, or threatening to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code or unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain any property, to the prejudice of complainant, with intention of causing the complainant to enter into any settlement.
Mere financial hardship of the complainant, in our view does not constitute 'coercion' as defined in Section 16 of the Indian Contract Act. Nothing prevented the complainant company from approaching this Commission instead of entering into a settlement with the Insurance Company and in such a complaint the company could have sought an interim relief based upon the preliminary report of the Surveyor. Such a course, however, was not adopted and the complainant company chose to settle the claim for a substantial amount of Rs.65,40,926.
// 15 //
9. The only reason given by the complainant company for giving consent to the settlement of the claim for Rs.65,87,847 is that it was in financial difficulty on account of the losses sustained in the fire and the wedding of the daughter of its Managing Director was to take place in December, 2008. However, the complainant has not produced its account books and balance sheets to prove that the complainant company was in financial difficulties at the time the consent letter dated 24.11.2008 was given by it to the Insurance Company. In the absence of the requisite documentary evidence it is not possible to accept the claim of the complainant company that it was in financial difficulty at the relevant time and, therefore, had no option but to give the aforesaid consent. Had the complainant company submitted its balance sheets including the list of its assets and liabilities at the relevant time only then this Commission could have known whether it was really in a financial difficulty at the time the letter dated 24.11.2008 was given by it to the Insurance Company, or not. No explanation has been given by the complainant company for not producing the aforesaid documentary evidence before this Commission. Therefore, an adverse inference needs to be drawn against the complainant company that had the account books, audited balance sheets, etc., of the complainant company been produced, before this Commission, the same would not have supported the case as set out in the complaint."
16. In the case of Subhash Malhotra vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. III (2014) CPJ 123 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"27. Though, he has alleged that the discharge voucher was signed under undue influence and coercive bargaining, but he has not filed any evidence to support the same. Discharge voucher was sent to him by Registered Post and he signed the same and sent it back. He has // 16 // also encashed the cheque of Rs.1,91,162/- sent to him. Thereafter the District Forum granted further relief of Rs.1,98,205.16 (after deducting Rs.1,91,162 already paid) from the total awarded amount of Rs.3,69,367.97. He has also been awarded interest due on the full amount at 12%. Admittedly, the Insurance Company has also paid the same and which has been received by the petitioner. The orders of the both the Fora below are very well-reasoned and have death with the report of the surveyor in detail. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for further increase in the compensation amount.
17. In the case of Suresh Kumar S.S. vs. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., II (2014) CPJ 69 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"6..................
"4........ Since the opposite party had made the said proposal with an unreasonable condition by which it is offered to release the claim settlement amount through DD in favour of M/s. Mini Muthoottu a Private money lending company, the complainant had objected to the releasing of the settled claim amount through M/s. Mini Muthoottu and demanded to release the amount through a nationalized Bank and expresses his willingness to accept the proposed offer of settlement for an amount of Rs.4,56,661. Since M/s Mini Muthoottu has nothing to do with the contract of insurance between this complainant and IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd., this complainant had conveyed his objection and dissent to the said proposal through a reply letter dated 4.12.2009 sent to the opposite party Insurance Company, but signified his consent to the proposed offer of settlement of the claim for an // 17 // amount of Rs.4,56,661 (Four lakh fifty-six thousand six hundred and sixty-one only) and demanded to release the amount through DD to be drawn in a nationalized bank preferably to this complainants account No.20013616040 in the State Bank of India, Kottayam, Thirunakkara Branch."
18. In the case of Chittiprolu Lokeswara Rao vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. I (2014) CPJ 39 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"9...........We agree with the principle laid down in aforesaid judgment, but in the case in hand, we do not find any circumstances providing fraud, undue influence, mis- representation etc. on the part of OP. Letter dated 10.5.2010, appears to be in the handwriting of complainant himself and no protest was made till encashment of cheques. In such circumstances, aforesaid citation does not help to the petitioner. He has also placed reliance on decision of this Commission in R.P. No.4275 of 2007 decided on 11.1.2008 in which it was held as under :-
"5. The complainant has submitted in his complaint that after 7 days of receipt of Rs.3,45,968, the complainant had approached the Insurance Company (O.P.1) and demanded the balance amount which was declined and he was asked to approach O.P.2. He further submitted that since the entire stock was burnt and because of financial crisis and heavy loss of interest, the complainant was constrained to sign on the discharge voucher, which was in a printed format. Therefore, he had no option but to file a complaint for // 18 // the balance amount. This, we feel is an act of coercive bargaining indulged in by the Insurance Company. A distressed insured person, who has lost all mans of earning his livelihood in a catastrophic fire, has no other choice but to accept any amount as an initial payment in the first instance."
10. Facts of aforesaid case are different from the facts of case in hand. In the aforesaid case printed discharge voucher was signed by the complainant under compelling circumstances and the complainant approached Insurance Co. just after 7 days of receipt of payment whereas in the present case, complainant as given letter in his own handwriting and notice has been given after 50 days of letter dated 10.5.2010 for final settlement."
19. In the case of M.L. Spinners Pvt. Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, II (2014) CPJ 692 (NC), it is observed by Hon'ble National Commission thus :-
"12. In Bhagwati Prasad Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, II (2007) CLT 293 (SC) = III (2006) ACC 1 (SC)=IV (2006) SLT 771 = (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 311, Apex Court has observed :-
"18. Section 8 of the Contract Act provides for acceptance by performing conditions of a proposal. In the instant case, the Railway made an offer to the appellant laying down the conditions that if the offer was not acceptable the cheque should be returned forthwith, failing which it would be deemed that the appellant accepted the offer in full and final satisfaction of its claim. This was further clarified by providing that the retention of the cheque and/or encashment thereof will // 19 // automatically amount to satisfaction in full and final settlement of the claim. Thus, if the appellant accepted the cheques and encashed them without anything more, it would amount to an acceptance of the offer made in the letters of the Railways dated 7.4.1993. The offer prescribed the mode of acceptance, and by conduct the appellant must be held to have accepted the offer and, therefore, could not make a claim later. However, if the appellant had not encashed the cheques and protested to the Railways calling upon them to pay the balance amount, and expressed its inability to accept the cheques remitted to it, the controversy would have acquired a differed complexion. In that event, in view of the express non- acceptance of the offer, the appellant could not be presumed to have accepted the offer. What, however is significant is that the protest and non-acceptance must be conveyed before the cheques are encashed. If the cheques are encashed without protest, then it must be held that the offer stood unequivocally accepted. An "offeree" cannot be permitted to change his mind after the unequivocal acceptance of the offer.
19. It is well settled that an offer may be accepted by conduct. But conduct would only amount to acceptance if it is clear that the offeree did the act with the intention (actual or apparent) of accepting the offer. The decisions which we have noticed above also proceed on this principle. Each case must rest on its own facts. The Courts must examine the evidence to find out whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the conduct of the 'offeree' was such as amounted to an unequivocal acceptance of the offer made. If the fact of the case disclose that there was no reservation in signifying acceptance by conduct, it must follow that the offer has been accepted by the conduct. On the other hand, if the evidence discloses that // 20 // the 'offeree' had reservation in accepting the offer, his conduct may not amount to acceptance of the offer in terms of section 8 of the Contract Act."
20. The appellant (complainant) is unable to prove that he signed the discharge voucher in compulsion or when he was in need of money or any influence was given by the respondents (OPs) to him, therefore, it can safely be held that the appellant (complainant) signed the discharge voucher in his free will and accepted the amount of Rs.1,75,000/- from the respondents (OPs) in full and final satisfaction of his claim.
21. Therefore, the impugned order dated 14.12.2015, passed by learned District Forum, is just and proper and does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality and does not call for any interference.
22. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant (complainant) being devoid of any merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar) (D.K. Poddar) (Narendra Gupta) President Member Member Member 05/05/2016 05/05/2016 05 /05/2016 05/05/2016