State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Company Ltd. & ... vs M/S Leelawati Hospital on 4 May, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA. First Appeal No: 262/2010 Date of Decision: 04.05.2012. 1. United India Insurance Company Limited, Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Circular Road, Timber House, Shimla. 2. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Hamirpur, H.P. Appellant s Versus M/S Leelawati Hospital, Ghumarwani, District Bilaspur, Through its Prop. Dr. Ram Dhan Sharma S/O Shri Hem Raj Sharma, R/O Indira Market Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. Respondent Coram Honble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member. Whether approved for reporting?[1] For the Appellants: Mr. P. S. Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate. O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) This appeal by the insurer, i.e. United India Insurance Company Limited, is directed against the order dated 31.05.2010, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur, whereby allowing the complaint filed by respondent, M/S Leelawati Hospital, a sum of `40,925/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, has been ordered to be paid by the appellant to the respondent/complainant.
2. Respondent/complainant runs a hospital at Ghumarwin, in Bilaspur District. Ultrasound machine purchased for `4.00 lacs, in the year 2001, was got insured by the respondent with the appellant in the sum of `2.50 lacs, in the year 2006. Machine developed a snag during the currency of the insurance agreement. Its convex probe got damaged. Intimation of the snag in the machine was given to the appellant, who deputed a surveyor. As per surveyor, the cost of new convex probe, the part which had become defective, was `1,57,500/-. He, however, reduced its cost by 50% and then reduced the resultant figure by 10% and reported that the complainant/respondent was entitled to a sum of `41,111/-. Complainant/respondent received the aforesaid amount and then filed a complaint, under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, claiming that he was entitled to the entire cost of the damaged part of the ultrasound machine.
3. Complaint was contested by the present appellant and its main plea was that the complainant/respondent, having received the amount of `41,111/-, assessed by the surveyor, in full and final settlement of his claim, was estopped from filing the complaint.
4. Learned District Forum without looking into the aforesaid plea of estoppel raised by the appellant, allowed the complaint and awarded a sum of `40,925/-, in addition to the amount already paid by the appellant to the respondent/complainant.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. Appellant relies upon Annexure R-3, a receipt against which insurance claim was received by the respondent/complainant. A reading of this document shows that the money had been received by the respondent/complainant in full and final settlement of his claim. If that is so, he could not have filed the complaint to ask for more money on account of his insurance claim. It is not his case that he was pressurized to sign the receipt or that he did not sign it voluntarily.
7. Consequently, appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.
8. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member May 04, 2012.
N Mehta) [1] Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?