Delhi District Court
Naresh Chand Jain vs M/S United India Insurance Company Ltd on 4 October, 2019
DLCT010043932015
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR-I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-12, CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CSDJ No.16276/16
1. Naresh Chand Jain
S/o Late Shri Gian Chand Jain
2. Madhu Jain
W/o Sh. Naresh Chand Jain
Both R/o 6, Kamla Bhawan,
Model Basti, New Delhi-110005 ...Plaintiffs
Versus
M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd.
2216, 3rd Floor, Hardhian Singh Road,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005
Through its Principal Officer ...Defendant
Date of institution : 15.12.2015
Date of reserving order : 30.09.2019
Date of decision : 04.10.2019
SUIT FOR RECOVERY
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the suit for recovery CS No.16276/16 Naresh Chand Jain & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Pg. 1 of 24 of Rs.8,47,183.40 filed by the plaintiffs.
2. Brief facts as stated by the plaintiffs are that plaintiff no.1 have been taking Medicare policies for himself and his wife from the defendant company since 01.06.2004 and have been regularly paying premiums on the policies without any break. In the year 2013, plaintiffs took an individual health insurance policy- 2010 bearing no.042500/48/13/97/00000504 from the defendant company and paid a premium of Rs.15719/- to the defendant which was commencing from 01.06.2013 and ending on 31.05.2014 and sum insured was Rs.2,75,000/- plus Rs.42,500/- for the plaintiff no.2 and a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- plus Rs.40,000/- for plaintiff no.1. The plaintiffs has also earlier taken a Super Top up Medicare Policy bearing policy no.042500/48/13/36/00000194 from the defendant company and paid a premium of Rs.7,191/- which was commencing from 16.04.2013 and ending on 15.04.2014. As per the said policy, the plaintiffs besides the above amounts was further insured with an additional sum of Rs.7,00,000/- through the Super Top up policy. The plaintiff no.1 was diagnosed with Bilateral Profound Sensorineural hearing loss for which on 13.12.2013 he underwent a surgery namely Right CS No.16276/16 Naresh Chand Jain & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Pg. 2 of 24 Cochlear Implant Surgery in Ganga Ram hospital after being admitted there on 12.12.2013 and discharged on 15.12.2013. He remained under treatment for the said disease w.e.f. 28.10.2013 and incurred expenses to the tune of Rs.6,36,980/-. Plaintiff no.1 informed defendant about the surgery intended to be undertaken on 09.12.2013 and requested the defendant to provide cashless facility as per the scheme but defendant asked him to incur expenses and get the reimbursement, hence plaintiff incurred the expenses and lodged claim along with all the requisite documents in December 2013. The defendant has illegally repudiated the said claim vide letter dated 28.07.2014, hence plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of the amount as mentioned above.
3. Defendant contested the suit by filing the written statement. In the written statement, defendant has not denied of plaintiff taking the individual health insurance policy-2010 bearing no.042500/48/13/97/00000504 and Super Top up Medicare Policy bearing policy no.042500/48/13/36/00000194 from the defendant company or plaintiff no.1 underwent a surgery namely Right Cochlear Implant Surgery. But the defendant has taken the objections that TPA has rightly repudiated the claim of the plaintiff CS No.16276/16 Naresh Chand Jain & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Pg. 3 of 24 for the reason that as per terms, conditions and clause respective individual scheme date of proposal and declaration dated 30.05.2005 applicable to this policy, the expenses for cochlear implant surgery is not payable as per the information published on website of the company under FAQ medical queries. The company vide its publication dated 27.07.2013 (Health Circular) and inter site has already informed that cochlear implant surgery is not payable even otherwise as per exclusion 4.7 of the policy document cost of hearing aids not payable and cochlear implantation is a form of hearing aid implantation which is not covered under the policy. Even otherwise the Super Top up Medicare Policy not applicable because the disease was pre- existing at the time of taking Super Top up Medicare Policy. The plaintiffs have concealed the fact that they have taken the Super Top up Medicare Policy first time on 16.04.2013 with a view to bear the expenses of Cochlear Implant Surgery with malafide intention and thus defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. The plaintiff has filed replication in which he denied the contents of the written statement. It is submitted by the plaintiff that the Medical Investigator appointed by the TPA has not rejected CS No.16276/16 Naresh Chand Jain & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Pg. 4 of 24 the claim of the plaintiff as is clear from the documents filed by the defendant himself. Further it is denied that any information was ever sent by the defendant regarding the exclusion as stated by it and thus plaintiff has prayed for grant of decree of Rs.8,47,183.40.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 04.05.2016:-
1) Whether the claim of the plaintiff is rightly repudiated? OPD
2) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of recovery of Rs.8,47,183.40 as claimed? OPP
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so at what rate and for which period? OPP
4) Relief.
6. In order to prove its case, plaintiff no.1 has examined himself as PW1 and led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/1. On the other hand, defendant has examined Sh.Subodh Sharma, its Divisional Manager/ Authorized representative as DW1 who led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A. CS No.16276/16 Naresh Chand Jain & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Pg. 5 of 24
7. Arguments were heard from the counsel for the defendant.
8. I have considered the submissions and gone through the records. My issuewise findings are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1 "Whether the claim of the plaintiff is rightly repudiated? OPD"
AND ISSUE NO.2 "Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of recovery of Rs.8,47,183.40 as claimed? OPP"
9. The issue no.1 and 2 are interlinked, therefore I decide both these issues together.
10. In order to prove their case, plaintiffs have examined plaintiff no.1 as PW1. In his evidence led through affidavit Ex.PW1/A he has almost reiterated the same facts as stated by him in the plaint, therefore same are not repeated here. He has relied upon the following documents:-
CS No.16276/16 Naresh Chand Jain & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Pg. 6 of 24
1) Copy of individual Health Insurance Policy-2010 bearing no.042500/48/13/97/00000504 is Ex.PW1/1.
2) Copy of Super Top up Medicare Policy bearing policy no.042500/48/13/36/00000194 is Ex.PW1/2.
3) Copy of super top up medicare policy no.042500/48/14/36/00000198 is Ex.PW1/3 and policy no.042500/48/14/97/00000858 is Ex.PW1/4.
4) Copy of letter dated 21.12.2013 is Ex.PW1/5.
5) Copy of the discharge summary is Ex.PW1/6.
6) Copies of the bills annexed with the claim filed before the defendant are Ex.PW1/7 (Colly).
7) Copy of letter dated 28.07.2014 is Ex.PW1/8.
8) Copy of notice dt. 05.12.14 is Ex.PW1/9 and its postal receipt is Ex.PW1/10.
11. On the other hand, in order to prove that plaintiffs are not entitled to any amount defendant has examined Sh.Subodh Sharma, its Divisional Manager/ AR as DW1. In his evidence led through affidavit Ex.DW1/A he has almost repeated the same CS No.16276/16 Naresh Chand Jain & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Pg. 7 of 24 contents as stated by the defendant in the written statement. It is stated by DW1 that the plaintiffs mischievously concealed the facts that they have taken the Super Top up Medicare Policy first time on 16.04.2013 with a view to bear the expenses of Cochlear Implant Surgery for pre-existing disease with a malafide intention. As per terms and conditions 4.1 all pre-existing disease are excluded in first four inception year of the policy. Even otherwise as per exclusion 4.4 in Super Top up Medicare Policy cost of spectacles, contact lenses and hearing aids are not payable. Further it is deposed that the health insurance is a contract like other contract and the plaintiff is bound by the terms and conditions of the policy as the same was signed by him. Further he has deposed that the claim of the plaintiff falls under the Exclusion Clause 4.1 (Pre-existing Disease), 4.4 and 4.7 (hearing aids not payable) of health insurance policy and thus the claim was repudiated by the defendant vide letter dated 28.07.2014. He has relied upon the Medical Investigator report dated 17.02.14 as Ex.DW1/1 and documents already Ex.PW1/2, Ex.PW1/6 and Ex.PW1/8.
CS No.16276/16 Naresh Chand Jain & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Pg. 8 of 24
12. It is contended by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs that from the testimony of plaintiff/ PW1, it is proved that plaintiff has taken the Individual Health Insurance Policy and Super Top up Medicare Policy from the defendant company and the policy was valid. The plaintiff no.1 was diagnosed with Bilateral Profound Sensorineural hearing loss and underwent Right Cochlear Implant Surgery and thus a sum of Rs.6,36,980/- was spent and the plaintiff is entitled to get reimbursement of the same from the defendant along with interest.
13. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the defendant has argued that since the plaintiff's disease i.e. hearing problem cannot be taken place in one day as same was not due to any accident but due to the old age, hence it was a pre-existing disease but plaintiffs concealed the same, therefore plaintiffs are not entitled to the reimbursement of expenses. He further argued that even otherwise Right Cochlear Implant Surgery is a hearing aid and hearing aids are excluded from the policy as per Clause 4.7.
14. I have considered the submissions and gone through the record.
CS No.16276/16 Naresh Chand Jain & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Pg. 9 of 24
15. From the evidence of the parties, the following undisputed facts emerged :-
(i) The plaintiff no.2 has taken an individual health insurance policy2010 bearing no.042500/48/13/97/00000504 commencing from 01.06.2013 and ending on 31.05.2014 for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and a Super Top up Medicare Policy bearing policy no.042500/48/13/36/00000194 commencing from 16.04.2013 and ending on 15.04.2014 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, from the defendant company for himself and plaintiff no.1.
(ii) The plaintiff no.1 was diagnosed with Bilateral Profound Sensorineural hearing loss and on 13.12.2013 he underwent a surgery namely Right Cochlear Implant Surgery and spent Rs.6,36,980/-.
(iii) The claim of the plaintiff was repudiated by the defendant on the ground that as per terms and conditions and clause the cochlear implant surgery is not payable. As per exclusion 4.7 of the policy document cost of hearing aids not payable and cochlear implantation is a form of hearing aid implantation which is not covered under the policy. Even CS No.16276/16 Naresh Chand Jain & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Pg. 10 of 24 otherwise the Super Top up Medicare Policy not applicable because the disease was pre-existing at the time of taking Super Top up Medicare Policy and the plaintiffs have concealed the fact that they have taken the Super Top up Medicare Policy first time on 16.04.2013 with a view to bear the expenses of Cochlear Implant Surgery with malafide intention.
16. To repudiated the claim of the plaintiffs, defendant has relied upon Clause 3.10 and 4.2 of the policy document which are as under :-
"3.10. Pre-Existing Condition/ Disease - Any condition, ailment or injury or related condition(s) for which insured person had signs or symptoms, and/ or were diagnosed, and/or received medical advice/ treatment, within 48 months prior to his/her first policy with the Company. 4.2 Any disease other than those stated in clause 4.3 and 4.4 below, contracted by the Insured person during the first 30 days from the commencement date of the policy. This exclusion shall not however, apply in case of CS No.16276/16 Naresh Chand Jain & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Pg. 11 of 24 the Insured person having been covered under an Insurance Scheme with our company for a continuous period of preceding 12 months without any break."
17. Now it is to be seen whether the disease i.e. loss of hearing for which plaintiff no.1 surgery was done was pre-existing or not.
18. As per the testimony of the plaintiff/ PW1, the policy no.042500/48/13/97/00000504 was taken first time which was commencing from 01.06.2013 and ending on 31.05.2014 whereas according to the plaintiff he was diagnosed for hearing loss and surgery was done on 13.12.2013. In his cross-examination, he had stated that the problem of bilateral profound sensorious hearing loss was started suddenly. He denied the suggestion that he was suffering from said disease from the last 15 years. He stated that first time he consulted with the doctor in this regard 30 to 45 days ago before undergoing surgery. He has denied the suggestion that he had consulted the doctor for his hearing loss for last about three years and doctors advised him for the hearing CS No.16276/16 Naresh Chand Jain & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Pg. 12 of 24 implant surgery. He stated that he do not know that hearing aid was implanted in the said surgery and volunteered that it is as per discharge summary. He denied the suggestion that he has taken the Super Top up policy with the only motive to bear the expenses of Right Cochleor implant surgery which was pre-existing disease. The DW1 has alleged that the plaintiff no.1 had pre-existing disease and relied upon the discharge summary of the plaintiff Ex.PW1/6.
19. On perusal of the discharge summary Ex.PW1/6, the patient history is given as under :-
"History:
Patient was apparently alright 15 years back, when he developed reduced hearing from both ears which was gradually progressive, used hearing aid for 14 years but not benefitted much. No complaint of tinnitus, vertigo.
History of discharge from left ear present for which underwent surgery 18 years back but hearing did not improve. For the last 7-8 months hearing impairment progressed to such a state that it affected day to day CS No.16276/16 Naresh Chand Jain & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Pg. 13 of 24 conversation and patient is not even benefitted by hearing aid."
Thus from the history as mentioned in the discharge summary, it is evident that plaintiff has the problem/disease of loss of hearing since about 15 years back and even has underwent surgery 18 years back and his hearing did not improve. Thus it is proved from the discharge summary itself that the plaintiff's disease was pre-existing. Admittedly plaintiff has not disclosed the said disease while taking either the main policy or the Super Top up Medicare Policy, thus has concealed the same.
20. The health insurance policy is a document of trust where insurance company give the policy on the principle that the insured person will disclose all the correct information about his health. The Insurance Company on the basis of said information decide whether policy is to be given or not and if it is to be given what should be premium charges from policy holder. By not disclosing about his disease for which plaintiff no.1 has went into surgery, the plaintiff has concealed the material fact and thus the claim of the plaintiff is liable to be repudiated on this ground alone CS No.16276/16 Naresh Chand Jain & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Pg. 14 of 24 so far as under Super Top Up Medicare Policy is concerned. Though since the Individual Health Insurance Policy was taken by the plaintiff in the year 2004 and after four years pre-existing disease are covered, therefore the plaintiff claim cannot be rejected on this ground qua the main health policy. Hence, in my view the defendant company has rightly repudiated the claim of plaintiff so far as it related to Super Top Up policy is concerned. However, as far as main policy is concerned, as per the opinion of Medical Investigator given by Dr. Vipin Gupta Ex.DW1/1 wherein it is clearly mentioned that the disease of the plaintiff is not pre- existing so far as main health policy being 4 years old but Super Top Up Policy not applicable since disease is pre-existing qua the said policy. Hence defendant will be liable to reimburse the amount to the extent of cover in the said policy i.e. Rs.2,50,000/- unless defendant is able to show that it is entitled to repudiate the claim under the main health policy.
21. As stated above, since claim of the plaintiff has been rejected under both the policies. To support the rejection of claim under main health policy, Ld. Counsel for the defendant has CS No.16276/16 Naresh Chand Jain & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Pg. 15 of 24 contested that the Cochlear implant surgery comes in the hearing aids and all hearing aids are excluded as per Clause 4.7 of the Health Insurance Policy Ex.PW1/1. I have perused the exclusion clause which is reproduced as under :-
"4. EXCLUSIONS:-
The company shall not be liable to make any payment under this policy in respect of any expenses whatsoever incurred by any Insured Person in connection with or in respect of:
4.1 Any pre-existing condition(s) as defined in the policy, until 48 months of continuous coverage of such insured person have elapsed, since inception of his/her first Policy with the Company.
4.2 Any disease other than those stated in clause 4.3 and 4.4 below, contracted by the Insured person during the first 30 days from the commencement date of the policy. This exclusion shall not however, apply in case of the Insured person having been covered under an Insurance Scheme with our company for a continuous period of preceding 12 months without any break.
4.3 During the first two years of the operation of the policy, the expenses on treatment of diseases such as Cataract, Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy, Hysterectomy CS No.16276/16 Naresh Chand Jain & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Pg. 16 of 24 for Menorrhagia or Fibromyoma, Hernia, Hydrocele, Congenital internal disease, Fistula in anus, piles, Sinusitis and related disorders, Gail Bladder Stone removal, Gout & Rheumatism, Calculus Diseases are not payable.
4.4 During the first four years of the operation of the policy, the expenses related to treatment of Joint Replacement due to Degenerative Condition and age-
related Osteoarthiritis & Osteoporosis are not payable. If these diseases mentioned in Exclusion no.4.3 and 4.4 (other than congenital internal disease) are pre-existing at the time of proposal they will not be covered even during subsequent period of renewal subject to the pre- existing disease exclusion clause. If the insured is aware of the existence of congenital internal disease before inception of policy, the same will be treated as pre-existing.
4.5 Injury/ disease directly or indirectly caused by or arising from or attributable to War, invasion, Act of Foreign enemy, War like operations (whether war be declared or not), 4.6 a. Circumcision unless necessary for treatment of a disease not excluded hereunder or as may be necessitated due to an accident b. Vaccination and inoculation CS No.16276/16 Naresh Chand Jain & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Pg. 17 of 24 c. change of life or cosmetic or aesthetic treatment of any description such as correction of eyesignt, etc d. Plastic surgery other than as may be necessitated due to an accident or as a part of any illness.
4.7 Cost of spectacles and contact lenses, hearing aids.
4.8 Dental treatment or surgery of any kind unless necessitated by accident and requiring hospitalization. 4.9 Convalescene, general debility; run-down condition or rest cure, obesity treatment and its complications including morbid obesity, Congenital external disease/ defects or anomalies, treatment relating to all psychiatric and psychosomatic disorders, infertility, sterility, venereal disease, intentional self injury and use of intoxication drugs/ alcohol. 4.10 All expenses arising out of any condition directly or indirectly cause to or associated with Human T-Cell Lymphotropic Virus Type III (HTLB-III) or hymphadinopathy Associated Virus (LAV) or the Mutants Derivative or Variation Deficiency Syndrome or any syndrome or condition of a similar kind commonly referred to as AIDS.
CS No.16276/16 Naresh Chand Jain & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Pg. 18 of 24 4.11 Charges incurred at Hospital or Nursing Home primarily for diagnosis x-ray or Laboratory examinations or other diagnostic studies not consistent with or incidental to the diagnosis and treatment of positive existence or presence of any ailment, sickness or injury, for which confinement is required at a Hospital/ Nusring Home.
4.12 Expenses on vitamins and tonics unless forming part of treatment for injury or diseases as certified by the attending physician.
4.13 Injury or Disease directly or indirectly caused by or contributed to by nuclear weapon/ materials. 4.14 Treatment arising from or traceable to pregnancy, childbirth, miscarriage, abortion or complications of any of these including caesarean section, except abdominal operation for extra uterine pregnancy (Ectopic Pregnancy), which is proved by submission of Jitra Sonographic Report and Certification by Gynaecologist that it is life threatening one if left untreated.
4.15 Naturopathy Treatment, acupressure, acupuncture, magnetic therapies, experimental and unproven treatment/ therapies.
4.16 External and or durable Medical/ Non-medical equipment of any kind used for diagnosis and or CS No.16276/16 Naresh Chand Jain & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Pg. 19 of 24 treatment including CPAP, CAPD, Infusion pump etc. Ambulatory devices i.e. walker, crutches, Belts, Collars, Splints, Caps, Splints, Slings, Braces, Stockings, Elastrocrepe bandages, external orthopaedic pads, sub cutaneous insulin pump, Diabetic foot wear, Glucometer/ Thermometer, alpha/ water bed and similar related items etc., and also any medical equipment, which is subsequently used at home etc. 4.17 Genetic disorders and stem cell implantation/ surgery 4.18 Change of treatment from one system of medicine to another unless recommended by the consultant/ hospital under whom the treatment is taken 4.19 Treatment for Age Related Macular Degeneration (ARMD), treatments such as Rotational Field Quantum Magnetic Resonance (RFQMR), Enhanced External Counter Pulsation (EECP), etc. 4.20 All non medical expenses including convenience items for personal comfort such as charges for telephone, television, ayah, private nursing/ barber or beauty services, diet charges, baby food, cosmetic, tissue paper, diapers, sanitary pads, toiletry items and similar incidental expenses.
4.21 Any kind of Service charges, Surcharges, Admission Fees/ Registration Charges, Luxury Tax and CS No.16276/16 Naresh Chand Jain & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Pg. 20 of 24 similar charges levied by the hospital."
22. Thus from the aforesaid clause 4.7 it is evident that the cost of spectacles, contact lenses, hearing aids are excluded. From the FAQ which has been filed along with DW1/1, it is evident that cost of Cochlear Implant is not payable.
23. Further defendant through testimony of Sh.Subodh Sharma/ DW1 has deposed that the medical investigator invited by TPA has repudiated the claim of the plaintiff for the reason that Cochlear Implant Surgery is not payable as per the information published on website of the company under FAQ medical queries. The company vide its publication dated 27.07.2013 (Health Circular) on internet site has already informed that cochlear implant surgery is not payable and moreover as per exclusion 4.7 of the policy document cost of hearing aids not payable and cochlear implantation is a form of hearing aid implantation which is not covered under the policy.
24. Now the question is whether the cochlear implant surgery is a hearing aid or not. The plaintiff in his testimony has CS No.16276/16 Naresh Chand Jain & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Pg. 21 of 24 not stated that whether the same is a hearing aid or not. In his cross-examination, he stated that he do not know that hearing aid was implanted in the said surgery but volunteered that it is as per discharge summary. The discharge summary has been proved by the plaintiff, hence it proves that cochlear implant surgery is a hearing aid.
25. Therefore in these circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled for the cost of the cochlear implant being hearing aid however in my view on this ground the entire claim of the plaintiff cannot be rejected as defendant can only deduct the cost of the cochlear implant but is liable to pay the cost of the surgery under individual Heath Insurance Policy Ex.PW1/1 as even as per own FAQ cost of surgery is not excluded. As per Ex.PW1/7 (Colly) cost of Cochlear Implant is Rs.5,35,000/- whereas plaintiff has claimed amount of Rs.6,36,980/- as expenses incurred on treatment of said disease. The defendant has not given any suggestion that said amount has not been incurred. Even otherwise Ex.PW1/7 proved that package charges bill for surgery was Rs.94,000/-. Besides this plaintiff has also proved other bills. Therefore there is no ground to CS No.16276/16 Naresh Chand Jain & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Pg. 22 of 24 dispute that plaintiff has spent Rs.6,36,980/- in Cochlear implant surgery. Therefore plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.1,01,980/- from the defendant after deducting the cost of cochlear implant surgery i.e. Rs.5,35,000/-. Issue no.1 and 2 are decided accordingly. ISSUE NO.3 "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so at what rate and for which period? OPP"
26. In view of my findings of issue no.1 and 2, I held that defendant is liable to pay Rs.1,01,980/. Further, since the defendant has deprived the plaintiff from use of the money, therefore I held that defendant is also liable to pay interest. The plaintiff has sought interest @ 18% p.a. however, in my view same is at higher side and considering the prevalent interest rate of bank, I grant simple interest @ 10% p.a. on the said amount from the date of sending of legal notice i.e 05.12.2014 till the date of decree and thereafter @ 12% p.a. from the date of decree till its realization. Issue no.3 is decided accordingly. CS No.16276/16 Naresh Chand Jain & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Pg. 23 of 24 RELIEF
27. In view of my findings of abovesaid issues, I pass a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,01,980/ along with interest @ 10% per annum on the said amount from the date of sending of legal notice i.e. 05.12.2014 till the date of decree and thereafter @ 12% p.a. from the date of decree till its realization. Plaintiffs are also held entitled to the proportionate costs of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 04.10.2019. (Sanjeev Kumar-I) Additional District Judge-12, (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Digitally
signed by
SANJEEV
SANJEEV KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2019.10.04
17:12:21
+0530
CS No.16276/16 Naresh Chand Jain & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Pg. 24 of 24