Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Del) 18034
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R. K. Bansal, J
United India Insurance Company – Appellant
Versus
Sigma Diagnostics Limited – Respondent
Consumer Appeal No. 159 of 2008 | Consumer Appeal No. 162 of 2008
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. A
For the Respondents: Mr. B
Insurance liability ceases post-policy expiration; operators must demonstrate continued defects during coverage.
Headnote:The case involves a cross-appeal under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 concerning a claim for deficiency in service related to insurance coverage for medical equipment. The complainant alleged failures in equipment functioning after repairs, while the respondents contended full settlement. The State Commission initially ruled in favor of partial compensation. Upon review, the conclusions supported no liability on the part of the insurance company regarding damage after policy expiration. The Court ultimately dismissed the appeal by the complainant and upheld the insurance company's position, setting aside previous orders.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of cross-appeals under the consumer protection act. (Para 1) |
| 2. claim of malfunction and service deficiencies coupled with the sequence of repairs. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's directives regarding the claim calculation and depreciation. (Para 6 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. judicial review of prior settlements and insurance liabilities. (Para 7 , 8 , 11 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. final ruling dismissing the complainant's appeals. (Para 21) |
1. Cross Appeals have been filed by the Appellants under S.19 of the Consumer Protection Act , 1986 against the Order passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Complaint No.8 of 2006 dated 5.3.2008.
2. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant purchased Cardiac Cath Lab equipment for a sum of Rs.2 Crores from SIEMENS in September, 1999. It was made operational in October 1999. Insurance Policy Nos.201400-44-03-30184 and 30185 were taken for the period from 13.8.2003 to 12.8.2004 for a sum insured of Rs.2 crores at a premium of Rs.2,16,000 for the Cath Lab equipment and Rs.19,000 for other equipment respectively. A service contract was also entered with SIEMENS from 1.7.2003 to 30.6.2004 for covering Injector, Recor & A Com M, - 1 Set. Unfortunately, there was a breakdown in the Cath Lab on 22.6.2004 and the same was immediately informed to the Opposite Parties on the next day. There upon, Surveyor Mr. Arun Mehta visited the Complainant's hospital on 25.6.2004 and Service Engineer of Siemens came on 26.6.2004. In the presence of the Surveyor, the Service Engineer informed that the X - ray tube of Cardiac Cath Lab was defective and needed replacement. The same was informed to the Opposite Parties. SIEMENS gave a proforma invoice of USD 52000 for replacement of the x - ray tube which was imported from SIEMENS, Germany on 21.8.2004.
3. X - ray tube was installed on 23.8.2004 by the Service Engineer in the presence of the Surveyor. The Complainant stated that the very same day the Service Engineer of SIEMENS informed the Complainant in the presence of the Surveyor that the new equipment was not working properly due to defect in the HT transformer of the Cath Lab which needed replacement. The same was informed to the Respondent on 28.8.2004. Thereupon, an order for purchase of HT transformer for Rs.8,90,000 was placed on 30.8.2004 and installed on 13.9.2004, also in the presence of the Surveyor.
4. After repeated requests, ultimately the Opposite Parties settled the claim on 16.8.2005. A cheque of Rs.2,40,800 was sent as full and final settlement of the claim which the Complainant received under protest. The Complainant wrote a protest letter dated 16.8.2005 to the Opposite Parties. A Complaint was filed before the State Commission with the following prayer:
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the present complaint be accepted and on account of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice the Opposite Party - Insurance Co. be directed to pay and reimburse to the complainant the loss amount of Rs.32,14,551 (thirty two lacs Fourteen thousands Five Hundred & Fifty One only) with interest @ 18% from the date of loss i.e. 22.6.2004 till its payment and in addition the Opposite Party - Insurance Co. in the interest of justice be also directed to compensate the complainant for mental and physical harassment, tension and torture to the tune of Rs.5 lacs. The Opposite Party - Insurance Co. be further burdened with the litigation expenses of Rs.77,000 in the interest of justice.
It is further prayed that any other relief or order which this Hon'ble Commission thinks fit and to which the complainant is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be ordered / granted in the interest of justice."
5. The Opposite Parties resisted the Complaint. The Insurance Policies and the appointment of Surveyor were admitted by the Opposite Parties. They stated that after the x - ray tube w
