w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s Kanchan Medicare And Research Centre Pvt.

Company & Directors' Information:- D. S. MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85100WB2008PTC129181

Company & Directors' Information:- K K MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85310CH1998PTC021033

Company & Directors' Information:- MEDICARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U99999TG1986PTC006690

Company & Directors' Information:- K D MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110DL2000PTC107059

Company & Directors' Information:- A & A MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85190WB2009PTC140435

Company & Directors' Information:- V G S MEDICARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U24231TN1988PTC015301

Company & Directors' Information:- I AND P MEDICARE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85110DL1993PLC052226

Company & Directors' Information:- S. J. MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110GJ2011PTC065287

Company & Directors' Information:- S B MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC047778

Company & Directors' Information:- R. S. MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110PB2008PTC032129

Company & Directors' Information:- KANCHAN MEDICARE & RESEARCH CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110MP1991PTC006675

Company & Directors' Information:- G B MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U24232PB2011PTC034562

Company & Directors' Information:- S S MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110DL2002PTC115168

Company & Directors' Information:- I M MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2004PTC131201

Company & Directors' Information:- J S MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85110MP2009PTC022054

Company & Directors' Information:- S. A. K. MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24230HR2019PTC081503

Company & Directors' Information:- I. C. MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24232DL2008PTC177588

Company & Directors' Information:- M M MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110OR2005PTC008481

Company & Directors' Information:- MEDICARE PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U22121AS1982PTC001957

Company & Directors' Information:- P & P MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2011PTC224186

Company & Directors' Information:- S P G MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24231DL2001PTC113231

Company & Directors' Information:- D. V. MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2017PTC327336

Company & Directors' Information:- S G MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2010PTC202423

Company & Directors' Information:- M R MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85120DL2010PTC206224

Company & Directors' Information:- R. C. MEDICARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U24232GJ2007PTC051001

    Revision Petition No. 960 of 2003

    Decided On, 04 April 2003

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, K S GUPTA

    For the Petitioner: Atul Nanda, Advocate. For the Respondent: ------.

Judgment Text

B. K. Taimni, Member

1. Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum where a complaint filed by respondent/complainant was allowed. An appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the State Commission.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent had insured his whole diagnostic equipment including X-ray machine for Rs. 11.50 lakhs which included insurance cover for the X-ray machine for Rs. 7.5 lakhs. When the machine stopped functioning, matter was reported to the petitioner as also to the supplier of the equipment - Siemens. The petitioner appointed Surveyors to assess the damages. Siemens gave the repair estimate at Rs. 4,33,620/-. Since no word was forthcoming from the petitioner, the complainant got the equipment repaired at the estimated costs and paid that amount. The Surveyors appointed by the petitioner assessed the depreciated price of the equipment at Rs. 3 lakhs and after providing for salvage, placed the petitioner's liability at Rs. 2 lakhs and after deducting 'excess' of Rs. 27,500/- (5% of the sum assured), net payable amount was worked out at Rs. 1,62,500/-. Even this was not paid. On the contrary petitioner repudiated the claim on the ground that since the damage to the equipment was on account of natural wear and tear, no amount is payable as per terms of the policy. It is in these circumstances complaint was filed by the respondent/complainant alleging deficiency on the part of the Insurance Co. petitioner, who after hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay the actual cost of repairs incurred by the complainant, costs and some other reliefs. An appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed except that a modification made on the date, from which interest was to be payable. Hence, this revision petition.

3. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that State Commission erred in affirming the order of the District Forum. X-ray machine had stopped functioning on account of wear and tear and is not covered by the terms of the policy. At most, what the complainant was entitled to was Rs. 1,62,500/- assessed by the Surveyor. Order passed by both the lower Forums are contrary to the facts and law on the subject, hence need to be set aside.

4. We have seen the material on record. Both the points raised by the petitioner have been gone into by the State Commission. It is admitted position that the Surveyor took the help of another technical expert. The factum of wear and tear, made the basis of repudiation by the petitioner, is not brought on record, hence this argument rightly was rejected by the State Commission. State Commission also looked into the point of coverage and examined it in terms of policy. Repairs are very much part of the policy. It could not have been expected from the complainant to let the machine rusted just because the insurers are not responding. They got the estimate from

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

none other than Siemens, got it repaired from them. In our view as per the terms of the policy, as analysed by the State Commission, petitioners have no option but to pay repair charges actually incurred and paid by the complainant. This revision petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed. No order as to costs.