New India Assurance Co Ltd vs C P Mathur

THE medi-claim of the complainant/respondent was settled at Rs. 1,00,000 by the petitioner-Insurance Company vide Annexure P11 on 12.11.1999 as full satisfaction and discharge of claims under medi-claim policy. The complainant, however, filed a complaint before the District Forum somewhere in March 2000 seeking further claim for Rs. 1,00,000 as also compensation alleging that the discharge voucher towards full satisfaction and discharge of all claims was got signed by the petitioner on the promise that the balance amount shall be paid subsequently and under these circumstances the complainant had signed the discharge voucher.

IT was also stated in the said complaint that on account of exorbitant expenditure incurred by him, he was under severe strain to repay the loan taken from various persons. The District Forum has held: "Under the circumstances and on the facts of the case, we are of the view that the complainant, who is a businessman, was not coerced to sign the discharge voucher and he accepted the offer amount voluntarily without any undue pressure or coercion."

THUS the District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant who had voluntarily accepted the sum as full and final settlement of his claim and the complaint was dismissed.

THE order of the District Forum was challenged by the complainant before the State Commission. The State Commission, however, allowed the complaint stating even if the appellant had signed the discharge voucher, it did not operate as estoppel as the right of a consumer, if abridged, at any stage cannot be overridden if the remedies are available under the law. Therefore, mere acceptance of voucher for Rs. 1,00,000 did not present the complainant from staking actual claim against medi-claim, policy. This order is subject matter of challenge in the revision before us.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that the complainant had accepted a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 towards full satisfaction and discharge of all claims under the medi-claim policy without any protest, nor the complainant ever wrote to the petitioner that the voucher had been obtained on assurance that the balance amount will be paid later. He, therefore, contends that the State Commission erred in allowing the claim.

ON the other hand, Counsel for the complainant urged that the discharge voucher had been obtained by the petitioner by undue influence or coercion and that the complainant had not signed discharge voucher voluntarily. He, therefore, contends that the State Commission has very rightly allowed the claim. He placed reliance on a few judgments to which we shall make reference later.

THE discharge voucher for full satisfaction and discharge of all claims under medi-claim policy was signed by the complainant on 12.11.1999 without any demur or protest. Even after the discharge of such voucher, the complainant did not write to the petitioner or any other authority that the discharge voucher was either obtained by any undue influence or coercion or with promise that the complainant would be paid the balance amount later. It was only after the period of four months when the complainant filed additional claim of Rs. 1,00,000. The stand of the complainant that he had orally taken up the matter with the Insurance Company after the execution of the discharge voucher and before the complaint was filed cannot be accepted without any corroborative evidence on this aspect The complainant, in our opinion, has failed to prove that the discharge order had been executed either under undue influence or coercion or with promise that the balance amount shall be paid later.

THE Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajmer Singh Cotton and General Mills and Ors., II (1999) CPJ 10 (SC)=VI (1999) SLT 590=(1999) 6 SCC 400, 402 has laid down as under: "The mere execution of the discharge voucher would not always deprive the consumer from preferring claim with respect to the deficiency in service or consequential benefits arising out of the amount paid in default of the service rendered. Despite execution of the discharge voucher, the consumer may be in a position to satisfy the Tribunal or the Commission under the Act that such discharge voucher or receipt had been obtained from him under the circumstances which can be termed as fraudulent or exercise of undue influence or by misrepresentation or the like. If in a given case the consumer satisfies the authority under the Act that the discharge voucher was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence or the like, coercive bargaining compelled by circumstances, the authority before whom the complaint is made would be justified in granting appropriate relief. However (sic so), where such discharge voucher is proved to have been obtained under any of the suspicious circumstances noted hereinabove, the Tribunal or the Commission would be justified in granting the appropriate relief under the circumstances of each case."

THE complainant, in our opinion, has failed to make out any circumstances on the basis of which, it can be said that the discharge voucher was executed by the complainant by undue influence or coercion bargaining or fraud or with promise that balance amount shall be paid later.

THE rulings upon which reliance has been placed by Counsel for the complainant are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case before us.

IN Singireddy Ramana Murthy v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., IV (2006) CPJ 384 (NC), F.A. No. 219 of 1996, decided on 8.3.2002 (NC), the complainant immediately after receipt of the amount had written a letter to the Insurance Company informing that the amount has been accepted under protest. In the said ruling, a judgment of this Commission in National Insurance Company v. Lal Chand Jain and Sons, 1997 (5) CTJ 5, has also been referred wherein it was pointed out that in cases where the complainant has been compelled or coerce into accepting settlement, the insured may lodge a protest immediately on receipt or soon thereafter. Hence, these rulings do not help the case of the complainant.

IN the case of Noor Ali v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., IV (2010) CPJ 60 (SC)=2009 (13) SCALE 78, the appellant had accepted the amount under protest which was clearly recorded in the form of endorsement made on letter dated 17.3.2004 written by Branch Manager of the Respondent to the Sr. Manager, Bank of Baroda. Therefore, this ruling does not come to the rescue of the complainant.

IN the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Panda, I (2007) CPJ 269 (NC), the discharge voucher was executed on 8.6.2000 and on the same day, the insured had sent a letter by registered post to the petitioner/Insurance Co. that the discharge voucher was signed by the Respondent under protest. This ruling also does not in any manner help the case of the complainant.

IN the case before us the complainant has failed to make out any case of undue influence, coercive bargaining, fraud or promise that the balance amount shall be paid to the complainant later. The State Commission has, therefore, erred in allowing the claim of the complainant. The District Forum has very rightly rejected the claim and the complaint. The revision is accordingly allowed. Order of the State Commission is set aside and the order of the District Forum is confirmed. The revision stands dismissed with no order as to cost. Revision Petition allowed.