AWARE HOSPITAL vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by the Complainant, namely, AWARE Hospital, is directed against the order dated 06.02.2012, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 330 of 2009. By the impugned order, the State Commission has overturned the order dated 29.10.2008, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ranga Reddy (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No.61 of 2006. By the said order, the District Forum, while allowing the Complaint filed by the Petitioner Hospital against New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (for short "the Insurance Company"), the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in not accepting the claim preferred by it in respect of two electro-medical equipment under the two insurance policies, had directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainant a sum of 10,67,919/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 25.08.2005 as also the cost of litigation, quantified at 3,000/-.

Briefly stated, the material facts, giving rise to the Complaint, are that the Complainant had obtained two insurance policies from the Insurance Company in the sums of 5,47,34,150/- and 67,15,067/- in respect of its medical equipment. Both the policies were issued for a period of one year commencing from 30.08.2004. The insurance for the equipment was covered on original cost and present cost of the equipment. It appears that on 06.12.2004 at about 8.30 a.m., on account of power failure, four medical equipments, namely, SIEMENS make CT Scanner, SIEMENS make 300 MA X-Ray Machine, OPTI MAX make Automatic Film Processor and Blue Star 50 Ton Chiller Plant got damaged. The Insurance Company was duly intimated about the incident. It seems that the two Surveyors, appointed by the Insurance Company, submitted some reports but the same did not find favour with the Insurance Company. However, it seems that in the meanwhile the Insurance Company decided to pay a sum of 8,29,581/- against the claim. The Complainant accepted the said amount vide receipt dated 25.08.2005.

Since the stand of the Complainant was that the said amount had been received as a part-payment, without prejudice to the settlement of the final claim, which plea was not accepted by the Insurance Company, the Complainant filed the Complaint before the District Forum, praying for payment of the balance amount of 10,67,919/- along with interest @ 12% p.a.; interest on a sum of 8,29,581/- from 06.12.2004 till 24.08.2005 for the delay caused by the Insurance Company in processing the claim; and a compensation of 5,00,000/-.

The Complaint was contested by the Insurance Company. In the Written Version filed on its behalf, it was stated that after the filing of the Complaint, an Investigator was appointed, who had reported that the companies, namely, M/s Abhay Chem and M/s Global Meditronix, from-where the damaged equipment were allegedly replaced were not genuine companies and, in view of the said report, the Complainant was not entitled to any further amount.

Taking into consideration the evidence adduced before it, the District Forum allowed the Complaint and issued the afore-stated directions.

Aggrieved, the Insurance Company carried the matter further in Appeal to the State Commission.

The main objection of the Insurance Company to the claim was that the afore-noted concerns, from where the Complainant claims to have purchased the equipments in question, were not in existence and, therefore, the entire claim was fraudulent. For coming to the said conclusion, the State Commission has relied on the report, submitted by the Investigator, reporting that the said two concerns were found to be non-existent. Having observed that the entire claim was fraudulent, the State Commission has allowed the Appeal, preferred by the Insurance Company, with a direction that the amount of 5,32,500/-, paid to the Complainant, in terms of the order passed by the District Forum, over and above the amount already paid to the Complainant initially, shall be refunded.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no substance in the present Revision Petition.

Though it may be true that the Complainant was neither informed about the appointment of the Investigator nor confronted with the material, on the basis whereof the Investigator had submitted the report that both the afore-noted concerns were not in existence at the time of alleged replacement of the afore-noted equipment, but I do not find any material on record whereby the Complainant had prayed for any opportunity to examine the Investigator or for production of any other material. The only plea of the Complainant in the additional affidavit, filed by way of evidence, was that it had purchased the said equipment against two invoices issued by the said concerns. However, no evidence had been brought on record by the Complainant regarding the mode of payment of a large sum of 16,00,000/- to M/s Abhay Chem for alleged purchase of Rotnax CT Scanner.

In view of the above, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the well-reasoned order passed by the State Commission, warranting interference in the Revisional Jurisdiction. Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed, with no order as to costs.