IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance Company is not bound to pay amount for mere asking.

M. Thanikachalam, President—The 2nd opposite party is the appellant.

2. The 1st respondent in this appeal, as complainant, approached the District Forum, seeking a direction against the opposite parties, to pay a sum of Rs. 66,580, being the amount incurred for obtaining duplicate passport, and for further sum of Rs.50,000 as compensation, for the mental agony, said to have been suffered by him inter alia contending, that he had taken overseas policy, which covers compensation for obtaining emergency travel documents, and fresh passport, that while he was at Paris on 12.5.2002, accidentally and inadvertently missed his passport, that in order to secure travel documents, and duplicate passport, he had spent a sum of Rs.66,580, that based upon the policy, when he lodged a claim, it was repudiated by the opposite parties, thereby committing deficiency, leading to mental agony, for which the opposite parties should pay the abovesaid sums.

3. The 2nd opposite party admitting the policy, as well their liability under the policy, would contend that the complainant had failed to produce the necessary documents viz. Embassy receipt, copy of emergency certificate and receipt of other expenses incurred by the petitioner, due to loss of passport, despite reminder and therefore non-payment of the amount cannot be termed as deficiency, in view of the admitted fact that the complainant alone had committed deficiency, in not furnishing the required documents, thereby praying for the dismissal of the complaint, denying other averments also.

4. The District Forum, by its order dated 22.2.2007, had reached the conclusion that though the complainant had not produced the documents, as required, the explanation given by him should have been accepted, since it is not accepted, claim repudiated, without valid reason, that should be construed as deficiency in service, further negativing one impermissible claim, even as per the endorsement made by the counsel on record for the complainant, a direction has been issued to pay a sum of Rs.41,580, as if the entire amount represents the expenses, incurred by the complainant, for obtaining emergency, temporary travel document, as well to pay a sum of Rs.10,000 towards compensation with cost of Rs.2,000, which is under challenge.

5. Heard the learned counsel for appellant as well as the 1st respondent, perused the written submissions, lower Court records and the order passed by the District Forum also.

6. The main submission, on behalf of the appellant was that, when the complainant has not produced necessary documents, informing the actual expenses incurred by him, for obtaining emergency travel certificate, non-payment of the said amount, cannot be described as unjustifiable repudiation, which was not properly considered by the District Forum, resulting erroneous

conclusion, warranting unavoidable interference by this commission, which is opposed.

7. By going through the terms and conditions of the policy, the admitted facts, as well reading the order of the District Forum, paying more attention, we are of the considered opinion, there is considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for appellant, to come to a conclusion that the order of the District Forum as unsustainable, as such.

8. It is an admitted fact, that the complainant had obtained a policy, through the 1st respondent, in policy No.260500/65244, in Plan II, having validity period of 35 days, from 19.4.2005, which is called “Overseas Mediclaim Policy”, which also covers the loss of passport, in the sense, reimbursing the policy holder expenses incurred for obtaining duplicate passport, or emergency travel documents. The complainant, who had been to Paris, lost his passport on 12.5.2005, accidentally or otherwise. Therefore, in order to return India, necessarily he ought to have taken emergency travel documents, as well fresh passport, whether it is temporary in nature, or otherwise. Thus, taking emergency travel docum