AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal is directed against the order by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajkot dismissing the complaint accepting the contention of the respondent that the appellant-complainant had voluntarily accepted the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for full and final settlement and had voluntarily signed the settlement voucher by accepting the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for the injury caused to him and, therefore, consumer dispute does not arise nor there was any deficiency in service by the respondents.
THE appellant-complainant insured himself with the respondent by Personal Accident policy bearing No. 66200/42/01/11/10873/ 91 valid for the period from 24.1.91 to 23.1.92. THE appellant met with an accident during the policy coverage period on 11.3.91 while he was working as driver and driving truck No. GTY 6486 and received injuries on the right leg near knee joint. THE appellant then claimed the compensation for injuries and was paid Rs. 10,000/- towards full and final settlement of the claim. According to the appellant, even though he had paid the premium of Rs. 110/- on 24.1.91 he was not issued the policy of insurance and, therefore, he was not in position to ascertain the amount which he was entitled to claim. THE respondents were bound to acquaint the appellant about the terms and conditions of the policy but only because of prejudice towards the appellant, he was not acquainted with the terms and conditions of the policy and was forced to settle the claim for Rs. 10,000/- and signed the settlement voucher for the same amount. THE appellant therefore claimed Rs. 40,000/- as the insurance was for Rs. 50,000/- . THE respondents asserted that the appellant had accepted Rs. 10,000/- towards full and final settlement of the claim and, therefore, the claim is not tenable as the amount was accepted voluntarily and valid discharge was given by the insured. THE respondents also asserted that consumer dispute does not arise as there was no deficiency in the service. THE learned District Forum accepted the contention of the respondents and dismissed the complaint. Shri D.M. Thakkar, the learned Advocate for the appellant asserted the same contentions before us. Shri Thakkar asserted that the policy was not given to the appellant and, therefore, the appellant was not conscious of the right to get the full amount and, therefore, merely because he signed the voucher for full and final settlement of the claim would not deprive him of asserting for the amount of Rs. 40,000/- . Shri Thakkar also submitted that consumer dispute did arise as there was deficiency in service by the respondents by not supplying the copy of the insurance policy. According to the submission of Shri Thakkar, the complaint was cause fracture and 35% disability was certified by the doctor. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to more amount than Rs. 10,000/- paid to him.
The undisputed facts are that the appellant submitted the claim and within short period received the amount of Rs. 10,000/- for full and final settlement of the claim. The claim was filed on 15.10.91 and the disbursement voucher was dated 20.12.91 and the cheque dated 24.1.92 was given to the appellant. The appellant then filed the complaint after about one month after the payment was made. Therefore, as such, there was no delay in the settlement of the claim. As such no other claim except the claim under the insurance policy therefore did arise in favour of the appellant.
THE honourable National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Col. Bhim Singh v. Regional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. 1992 (1) CPR 439 had the occasion to consider the meaning of "full and final settlement". It is observed that: "Full and find settlement" means termination of liability under a contract and under the contract of insurance policy in this case. In fact, the expression ''in full and final settlement'' is equivalent to ''discharge''. Discharge is termination liability under a contract by executing an instrument of receipt for payment. In other words discharge in respect of a policy of insurance would be discharge of the liability under that policy. This would not discharge the insurer from any other liability that he might have incurred outside the terms of the contract of Insurance."
x x x x x x "THE discharge furnished by the complaint is obviously a discharge for the contractual payment under the policy of the insurance and therefore, this discharge does not extinguish his right to claim compensation for any damage, loss or injury suffered by him due to the negligence of the opposite party as provided in Section 14(1)(d) of the Act."
In that case there was inordinate delay and harassment to the policy holder and, therefore, the Commission allowed interest for the delayed period, expenses for travel etc. In that case the full amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- due to the complainant under the insurance policy already paid, but late. It is, therefore, clear that when such voucher containing the satisfaction as full and final settlement is voluntarily signed and the amount is accepted, the contract under the policy is satisfied. It cannot be accepted that merely because the appellant was not supplied the copy of the policy, he did not know the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. THE very fact that the claim form was submitted and the amount claimed by itself is sufficient to hold that he was conscious of the contents of the policy held by him. The learned District Forum has also considered the relevant aspects regarding the claim under the policy. The appellant had submitted the medical report issued by the G.T. Sheth Orthopaedic Hospital, alongwith the form. The report stated that the complainant had sustained the injury of dislocation of hip etc. and the injuries were likely to take 16 to 18 weeks to heal. The Medical Officer of G.T. Sheth Orthopaedic Hospital stated that no permanent disability was caused even though the certificate was issued after 4 months of the accident. The respondents calculated the claim of the appellant and settled for full and final payment for Rs. 10,000/- which was accepted by the appellant. Thus the appellant accepted that amount for full and final settlement of claim.
THE learned District Forum had considered the terms and conditions of the policy which is produced on the record and observed that the said terms and conditions did not help the appellant. In Clause (f) of the policy it is provided that "if such injury shall be the sole and direct cause of temporary total disablement, then so long as the insured shall be totally disabled, from engaging in any employment or occupation of any description whatsoever, a sum at the rate of one per cent (1 %) of the capital sum insured stated in the schedule hereto per week, but in any case not exceeding Rs.1,500/- per week in all, under all policies." THE insurance coverage was for Rs. 50,000/- and as per the certificate of Dr. D.K. Shah, the appellant suffered the permanent disability to the extent of 35%. THE District Forum, considering that aspect observed that "the appellant was entitled to Rs. 500/- per week during the period of hospitalisation and, therefore, also the amount paid to him is not less than what he could claim. THE District Forum also observed that in the claim form no disability was asserted and relying upon the medical report the claim was reasonably and properly assessed and settled between the parties and, therefore, the appellant could not make any grievance. THE District Forum observed that no consumer dispute existed between the parties when the complaint was filed as the claim was finally settled. To support the observation, the District Forum relied upon M/s. Fancy Saree Stores v. THE New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in 1991 (2) CPR 730. In that case the complainant accepted the amount in full settlement of all the claims and thereafter filed the complaint. THE State Commission extracted the relevant para from the judgment of Kilarujogendra Narayan Prasad v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Life Insurance Co. & Anr. reported in I (1991) CPJ 236 (NC) in which it was observed that: "THEre is no evidence to establish that the complainant had not given valid discharge to the Insurer or that the Insurance Company had coerced the complainant into accepting the settlement unwillingly and involuntarily."
X X X X X X "Even if, it is assumed that the complainant was coerced into giving his consent, then it will not be mere case of deficiency in service by the opposite party, but also a case of fraud for which the complainant can seek redress from the appropriate Court."
After considering the relevant facts, the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission observed that: "In these circumstances it will not be unreasonable to hold that there was no consumer dispute subsisting at the time when the complaint was filed and in view of the order in Kilaru Jogendra Narayan Prasad''s case (supra) the matter cannot be investigated in the complaint. It may be stated that in the complaint in Kilaru Jogendra Narayan Prasad''s case (supra) the complainant averred that "under this pressure; influence, false representation, threat under utter confused statement of mind, I was forced to give my acceptance even against my own will, free consent and satisfaction, "It was urged in that case that acceptance of the letter in these circumstances is nor validity in law and cannot bind him. This plea was repelled by the National Commission."
For that reason also the order by District Consumer Disputes Redresal Forum should be confirmed. We do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajkot. THE appeal therefore deserves to be dismissed. Appeal dismissed.