State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Usha Rani vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. on 8 November, 2012
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 08.11.2012 First Appeal No.979/2008 (Arising out of Order dated 20.08.2008 passed by the District Consumer Forum( New Delhi) M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.202/2005) Ms. Usha Rani, Appellant/Complainant W/o Sh. C.S. Puri, through Mr. Anil Mittal A-2/74, Azad Apartment, advocate. Aurobnido Marg, New Delhi -16. Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. .Respondent/Opposite Party (Tower-II), Level-4, through Ms. Neerja Sachdeva Jeevan Bharti Building, advocate, Connaught Place, New Delhi. BRANCH OFFICE 7-E, Jhandewalan, New Delhi -110055 Through Branch Manager, CORAM Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi ... President Ms. Salma Noor, Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment? YES
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President
1. Facts relevant for disposal of the appeal are that the complainant, who obtained a medi-claim policy for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from OP National Insurance Co. was operated on her knee at Sita Ram Bhartiya Institute of Science and Research on 26.06.2000, which for she paid an amount of Rs.3,03,150/- to the hospital. On 17.07.2000, the complainant lodged a claim with all supporting documents with the OP to indemnify her for Rs.3,03,150/- plus Rs.29,811/- spent subsequently on physiotherapy, medicines and nursing care.
2. OP repudiated her claim twice firstly on 27.03.2003 and secondly on 18.09.2003.
3. The complainant then sent a letter to OPs General Manager on 01.08.2004, calling upon him to intervene and settle the matter, but with no heed.
4. The complainant therefore filed a complaint before the District Forum, alleging deficiency and negligence on the part of the OP, praying to pass a decree of Rs.3,32,961/- alongwith 18% compounding interest from the date of claim till payment, and Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for harassment and mental agony, against the OP.
5. The OP filed the written version denying any deficiency and negligence on its part, alleging that at the time of making the proposal for the policy the complainant had not disclosed her pre-existing disease of the knee and for this reason the claim of the complainant fell under the exclusion clause 4.1 of the Policy, and was rightly repudiated, by the OP Company.
6. On consideration of evidence of both the parties, the District Forum vide order dated 20.07.2007 decreed the claim of the complainant for Rs.3,32,961/- towards amount of treatment, Rs.40,000/- towards compensation and litigation costs of Rs.3000/-, which the parties assailed by filing separate appeals before this Commission, appeal of the complainant bearing No.2007/675 and the appeal of the respondent being FA No.2007/920.
7. The appeal filed by the respondent Insurance Co. came up before the Commission earlier, which the Commission disposed of vide order dated 09.01.2008, without giving a notice of hearing to the complainant. By this order the Commission set aside the order passed by the District Forum and remitted the case for deciding it afresh by way of a reasoned order. After remanding the case back, the Commission decided the appeal of the complainant vide order dated 15.02.2008, which related to the enhancement of compensation, or grant of interest, and dismissed it.
8. In pursuance of the remand order, the District Forum vide order dated 20.08.2008 decided the complaint again, reiterating the same decree, and the OP Insurance has paid to the appellant complainant the decretal amount on 02.01.2009.
9. It is now the appellant/complainant who has came in appeal before this Commission, on the same grounds, which were taken up by her earlier in appeal. Her only prayer before us is that she be awarded compounding interest @18% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.3,32,961/-, and the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum be enhanced.
10. We have heard Sh. Anil Mittal, counsel for the appellant and Ms. Neerja Sachdeva, counsel for the respondent in this appeal.
11. The plea of the appellant is that she should be awarded interest at a compound rate of 18% per annum. The District Forum did not award the interest and gave no reasons for not awarding interest. Award of interest is a natural concomitant of arrears. Whenever money is due, and has not been paid interest can and should be awarded, irrespective of demand. Whenever payment is not prompt, interest crops up and should be awarded. Demand of compound interest is unreasonable. We would award simple interest @6% per annum from the date when payment became due, till the date of payment.
12. No proper justification has been put forward for enhancement of compensation. We do not propose to interfere in the same.
13. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.
14. A copy of this order be provided to the parties as per rule, whereas a copy of this order be sent to the concerned District Forum to place it on original record of complaint case No.202/2005. The file be consigned thereafter to Record room.
Announced on 08th day of November 2012.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (Salma Noor) Member Tri