Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member, Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member
New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Th. its
Managing Director, Dr. Mahesh
Kuriyal —Petitioner
versus
M/s Combined Medical Institute Private Ltd., Through Its Branch Manager —Respondent
Revision Petition No.19 of 2009
(Against the Order dated 07/11/2008 in Appeal No.40/2008 of the State Commission Uttaranchal)
Decided on 17.3.2015

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Anjalli Bansall, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Vijay K. Jain, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
No case of coercion made out, since, no allegation of committing or threatening to commit, any act forbidden by IPC or unlawful detaining or threatening to detain, any property to prejudice of complainant, with intention of causing complainant to enter into any settlement.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 15, 17, 19 & 21 — Indian Contract Act, 1872 — Section 16 (2) (b) — Applicability of — Insurance — Hospital Machines — Insurance Company not in fiduciary relationship vis a vis complainant — Clause (b) of Sub- Section (2) of Section 16 concerns an individual whose mental capacity affected by reason of age, illness etc. — HELD — Obviously inapplicable. [Para 11]
       (ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 15, 17, 19 & 21 — Indian Contract Act, 1872 — Section 16 (3) — Applicability of — Insurance — Hospital Machines — HELD — Insurance Company not in position to dominate will of complainant — Sub-Section (3) of Section 16 of the Act would not apply. [Para 11]
       (iii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 15, 17, 19 & 21 — Indian Contract Act, 1872 — Section 17 — Applicability of — Insurance — Hospital Machines — No allegation of fraud against insurance company — No allegation of concealment of material fact by insurance company from complainant with a view to obtain consent of complainant company to settlement — Section 17 of the Act not applicable. [Para 11]
       (iv) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 15, 17, 19 & 21 — Indian Contract Act, 1872 — Section 18 — Applicability of — Insurance — Hospital Machines — No allegation of any misrepresentation within meaning of Section 18 of Contract Act — HELD — Section 18 does not apply. [Para 11]
       Result: Revision allowed

ORDER

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—The complainant Combined Medical Institute Private Limited, a Company registered under the provisions of Companies Act got insured C.T. Scan machine along a Table, a Monitor and a Camera etc., with the opposite party New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vide policy dated 09.06.2003. Alleging malfunctioning of the Data Execution Board, a report was lodged by the complainant with the insurance company. After inspection of the machine by the surveyor, the complainant company got it repaired by replacing the Data Execution Board, paying a sum of Rs.5,42,400/- to Seagate Medical Service for the purpose. The complainant submitted a claim for the aforesaid amount to the insurance company. The aforesaid C.T. machine again went out of order on 16.12.2003 since its camera stopped working. After informing the insurance company, the complainant got the camera repaired at a cost of Rs.1,76,282.30 and lodged a claim with the insurer. Since the claims were not paid, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint, seeking payment of a sum of Rs.7,18,683/-, along with interest @ 18% per annum, compensation amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- and the cost of litigation.

2. The complaint was resisted by the insurance company on the ground that after filing the complaint, they had paid a sum of Rs.2,90,259/- to the complainant against the first claim of Rs.5,42,400/- and a sum of Rs.57,994/- against the second claim of Rs.1,76,282.30. This was also alleged by the opposite party that the aforesaid payment was made in full and final settlement of the claim and a Discharge Voucher was also duly executed by the complainant company in this regard.

3. Vide order dated 30.01.2008, the District Forum held that in view of the payment made to the complainant, it was not entitled to any further amount from the insurance company and accordingly dismissed the complaint.

4. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the complainant company approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 07.11.2008, the State Commission directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.2,52,141/- to the complainant against the first claim and a sum of Rs.1,18,288/- against the second claim, along with interest on that amount @ 6% per annum and cost of litigation amounting to Rs.2,000/-. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the insurance company is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

5. A perusal of the settlement Intimation Voucher duly signed by the complainant company, which are available at pages 58 and 59 of our paper book would show that the complainant company agreed to accept a sum of Rs.2,90,259/-in full satisfaction and discharge of its claim against policy in question and accordingly received the aforesaid amount from the insurance company, whereas a sum of Rs.57,994/- was received in full satisfaction and discharge of the second claim of the complainant company.

6. It is evident from a perusal of the aforesaid discharge vouchers that the amount offered by the insurance company was accepted by the complainant without any reservation or protest and in full and final satisfaction of its claim. If the complainant company was not satisfied with the amount offered to it by the insurance company, nothing prevented it from rejecting the said offer. Alternatively, since the complaint was already pending before the District Forum at that time, the complainant company could have applied to the said Forum for a direction to the insurance company to pay the amount offered by it without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the complainant. That having not been done, it is obvious that the complainant company was satisfied with the offer of the insurance company and that is why it executed the discharge vouchers without use the office of the District Forum for the purpose of receiving the said payment. Having accepted the aforesa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IMPORTANT POINTNo case of coercion made out, since, no allegation of committing or threatening to commit, any act forbidden by IPC or unlawful detaining or threatening to detain, any property to prejudice of complainant, with intention of causing complainant to enter into any settlement.

IMPORTANT POINT
No case of coercion made out, since, no allegation of committing or threatening to commit, any act forbidden by IPC or unlawful detaining or threatening to detain, any property to prejudice of complainant, with intention of causing complainant to enter into any settlement.