SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member, Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
M/s. Advanced Healthcare Resources India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. —Complainants
versus
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. —Opp.Parties
Consumer Case No.211 of 2010
Decided on 20.1.2016

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainants:Mr. S. N. Bhat, Advocate
For the Opp.Parties:Mr. P. K. Seth, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
No relief can be awarded to complainant whose case is littered with weaknesses.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21—Insurance—Complete breakdown of MRI machine—Delay in process of finalising claim was due to complainant’s non-cooperation, suppression and concealment in providing required documents and information to opposite parties and its Surveyors—Second surveyor was appointed as complainant did not co-operate and supply necessary documents as one of pre-requisite for processing claim—Original invoice not produced by complainant—Case of complainants is littered with evidence of its weaknesses—They have made a feckless attempt to assail repudiation of their claim—Complaint dismissed. (Paras 9, 15, 23 to 26)

       Result: Complaint dismissed.

ORDER :

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—M/s. Advanced Health Care Resources India Pvt. Ltd., the complainant No. 1 is a private limited company. The complainant took loan from Corporation Bank for the purchase of MRI Machine which comprises of three components namely:

(i) GE Vector Mri System (inclusive of all types of coils camera with console & system, C Spin,

(ii) Brain Coil, Shoulder Coil, Magnet: Model Vectra GE 39232 AG SL NO.498 AGFA Scopix LT 28 Lase,

(iii) Console & OFC Chiller – 2002.

The said MRI machine was installed at complainant’s Kerala MRI Centre, Lissile Hospital Campus, Ernakulam. The complainant got this machinery insured from the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., OP, in this case. The insurance policy was renewed from year to year. The last insurance policy issued by the insurance company OP was valid for the period from 30.04.2007 to 29.04.2008, the copy of which has been placed on record as Exhibit C1.

2. The said MRI machine suffered a breakdown on 09.02.2008 and became totally non-functional. The information was furnished to the insurance company on 11.02.2008. The copy of letter is annexed with the complaint as Annexure C2. M/s. Wipro GE Healthcare is the authorised servicing agency for the said MRI machine. It noted that the cost of repair of the machine was very high and that it would not be financially viable to repair the machine. The copies of their letters dated 04.08.2008 and 19.08.2008 are annexed as Annexure C3 and C4 respectively.

3. The insurance company got the survey done through Shri H.S. Mahabala, a surveyor on 20.02.2008. Vide letter dated 10.04.2008 (Annexure C5) he submitted that the assessment would be made in accordance with the terms & conditions of the insurance policy. The copy of his report did not see the light of the day. The insurance company wrote a letter dated 12.01.2009 (Annexure C6) that Mr. T. Thomas of M/s. T. Thomas Grom Surveyors would inspect the machine. The complainant raised no objection vide letter dated 24.01.2009, the copy of which was placed on record as Annexure C7. M/s. Wipro GE Healthcare also wrote a letter dated 30-03-2009 to the complainant stating that the prevailing selling price for an MRI machine having similar features was Rs.1.8 crore. Its true copy (Annexure C9) has been placed on record. The complainant sent a letter dated 09.05.2009 to the opposite party for expediting the matter and its copy was placed on the record as Annexure C10 and reminder was sent on 16.05.2009 and its copy has been annexed as Annexure C11. The copy of another reminder has also been placed on the record as Annexure C12. The complainant has also placed the covering letter dated 10.06.2009 and claim form (Exhibit C13) and reminder letter dated 15.06.2009 as Annexure C14 and letters as Annexures C14, C15 and C16.

4. The complainant received a handwritten letter dated 18.7.2009 from one Mr. B. Gopala Krishna claiming that he had been appointed by the OP insurance company as surveyor for the purpose of assessing the claim of the complainant. Its copy has been placed on the record as Annexure C17. Thereafter, correspondence went on between the parties and copies of letters dated 27.07.2009 (Exhibit C18) dated 27.07.2009 (Annexure C19), letter dated 27.07.2009 (Annexure C20), letter dated 28.07.2009 (Annexure C21), surveyor’s letter demanding more documents (Annexure C22) form the part of the record. The complainant has also placed copies of other correspondence dated 05.08.2009, 20.08.2009, 19.12.2009 as Exhibits C23, C24, C25, and dated 06.02.2010 as Annexure C67.

5. Ultimately, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 17.02.2010. Its relevant portion runs as follows:

“We acknowledge receipt of your letter dt.06-02-2010. You had obtained the above referred policy (renewal of earlier policies), representing to us that the equipment to be covered is make of year 2002. On your such representation, we, the insurer, in good faith, issued the policy whic






































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top