Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 are the appellants. The first respondent filed complaint claiming an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- on the premise that the appellants did not exercise due care and skill in rendering treatment to her at the respondnet.no.1-hospital. 2. The case of the respondent no.1 as seen from the averments of the complaint is that she was undergoing treatment for back pain at the hospital of Gurnadha Rao at Khammam which did not yield any result and she approached the 1st respondent hospital on 30.04.2008 where the second appellant diagnosed her from suffering from prolapse of intervertebral Disc L4-5 and impigment on the Cal Sac2 lateral recess. She was admitted in the 1st respondent hospital on 01.05.2006 and the 2nd appellant conducted laminectomy and discectomy upon her on 03.05.2008 and she was discharged on 12.05.2008 with advice to attend for review a month later. 3. The 1st respondent developed pain, oozing of pus an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd which is the opposite party no.2 has filed the appeal. The 1st respondent filed complaint seeking for indemnification of the cost of his vehicle, Tractor bearing registration number AP 07 L 2382 which was insured with the appellant under insurance policy bearing number 10000/31/11/019461 valid for the period from 26.03.2011 to 25.03.2012 for a sum of Rs.3 lakh. The 1st respondent has submitted that the vehicle was stolen by unknown persons on 26.11.2011 from the place in front of his house and after searching for the vehicle he lodged compliant with the police, Chotuppal on 3.12.2011 and the police registered case in Cr.No. 267 of 2011. The 1st respondent lodged claim with the appellant through the second respondent and the appellant repudiated the claim on 20.12.2011 on the ground that it was belatedly informed of the theft of the vehicle on 16.12.2011. The 1st respondent questioning repudiation of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite party no.2 is the appellant. The appeal is challenge to the order of the District Forum whereby the appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3 lakh with interest thereon to the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 filed complaint claiming a sum of Rs.10 lakhs towards compensation on account of death of his wife and he claimed the amount on the premise of deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. 2. The case of the first respondent as seen from the averments of the complaint is that his wife Rapolu Sailaja was pregnant and used to visit the hospital of the appellant during her pregnancy period. The appellant and the respondent no.2 informed the first respondent that his wife was in a fit condition for safe delivery. On completion of nine months and when the first respondents wife developed labour pain, she was admitted in the hospital of the appellant at 4.20 p.m. on 13.6.2008 and she delivered a female child the nex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite party has filed appeal challenging the order of the District Forum whereby the appellant was directed to allot 2 plots to the respondent and in the alternative to refund the amount paid by the respondent, a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a from the date of last payment till realization and the District Forum further directed the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- on each plot as compensation and an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards costs. The District Forum had put rider imposing interest on failure of the appellant to pay the amount. 2. The respondent filed complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the appellant- company to register plots bearing number 365 and 366 each admeasuring 200 sq.yards in Sai Surya, Venture at Nidamanaur, near Vijayawada covered by pass book nos. 365 and 366 and for payment of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards expenses. 3. The respondent entered i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite party is the appellant. The appeal is challenge to the order of the District Forum whereby the appellant was directed to obtain occupancy certificate from the Municipal Commissioner Guntur and to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards costs. 2. The respondent filed complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the appellant to obtain occupancy certificate and hand over possession of Flat bearing number 305 as also to pay an amount of Rs.55,000/- towards damages and expenses. The respondent submitted that the appellant entered into Development Agreement with the land owners, Kidambi Srinivasacharyulu for development of the land and raising building thereon under the name and style Kidamby Residency. The respondent purchased Flat bearing Door Number 305 from the appellant and at the time of sale of the Flat, the appellant promised the respondent that it had not furnished occ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite party no.3 is the appellant. The averments of the complaint are that Gojja Appa Rao, the husband of 1st respondent and father of respondents 2 and 3 obtained housing loan of Rs.4,50,000/- on 16.6.2003 from the respondents no.4 and 5. The loan was repayable in equated monthly instalments of Rs.5,400/-. Appa Rao had also taken another loan from the respondents no.4 and 5 on 20.8.2010 with a loan limit ofRs.12,00,000/-. The 4th respondent on 24.9.2010 released a sum of Rs.4,80,000/- and issued DD for a sum of Rs.78,764/- towards SBI life insurance. The 4th respondent released Rs.2,00,000/- on 24.12.2010 and Rs.2,50,000/- on 4.1.2011 in total Rs.10,08,764/- out of sanctioned limit of Rs.12,00,000/-. Before commencing repayment of 2nd loan amount, Appa Rao died on 28.3.2011. The 4th respondent collected a sum of Rs.4,028/- on 6.6.2011 towards insurance premium even after intimation from the 2nd respondent about the death of Appa R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1.The opposite parties are the appellants. The averments of the complaint are that the respondent took a policy bearing No.SCG2230417 from the appellant for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. She paid first quarterly premium of Rs.7,500/- on 12.11.2008 and next premium on 13.2.2009. Lakshmi Kantham the mother of the respondent died on 19.3.2009 due to heart attack. The respondent, who is the nominee under that policy had intimated to the appellant. The respondent had sent a letter dated 25.11.2009 to the appellant asking them to issue claim forms for settlement of policy. The respondent got notice issued on 24.2.2011 to the appellants. 2. The appellants resisted the case contending that they received the claim intimation on 12.8.2009 and life assured died on 19.3.2009. On the same day the appellants sent letter to the respondent asking him to provide requisite documents. The investigator submitted report along with medical record and doctors certificat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Smt .M. Shreesha, Incharge President Aggrieved by the order of C.C.No.36/2011 on the file of District Forum, Srikakulam, the opposite parties preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased one house plot from second opposite party which is a real estate firm through opposite party No.1, who is the agent by paying an admission fee of Rs.100/- and first instalment fee of Rs.300/- in the month of June, 2004. The complainant entered into an agreement of sale dated 7-8-2007 for the subject plot with second opposite party on 07-8-2007 and paid totally 61 instalments, but opposite party no.1 issued only 58 receipts and inspite of several requests, balance 3 receipts were not issued in favour of the complainant. Finally the complainant approached the second opposite party for registration in September and October, 2010 but was denied the registration on the ground that she did not pay balance three instalments. The complainant further subm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Smt. M. Shreesha, Incharge President These appeals are disposed of by a common order, since the facts are similar in all these C.Cs. F.A.No.731/2012: Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.750/2011 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad, the OPs preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of plot No.116 measuring 270.39 sq. yds. in Sy No.74 Gopanapalle Village, Serilingampally Mandal and the opposite parties approached the complainant for developing his plot submitting that the neighbouring owners also were offering their respective plots for development. Induced by such an offer, the complainant accepted the proposal and entered into a development agreement-cum-GPA on 14-3-2008 with the opposite parties. Opposite parties paid Rs.5 lakhs to the complainant towards interest free refundable security deposit amount which is to be refunded to the opposite parties at the time of handing over possession of the flats to the complainan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Smt. M. Shreesha, Incharge President Aggrieved by the order of C.C.No.24/2011 on the file of District Forum, Nizamabad, the opposite party preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is the mother of the insured Sri Madhu Reddy who took an insurance policy valid from 28-5-1999 for an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- with accidental benefits. While so, on 21-3-2010 the insured died in a motor vehicle accident and the complainant made a claim with the opposite party and the opposite party paid an amount of Rs.57,982/- through cheque under the policy after some deductions but denied the accidental benefits on the ground that the insured was driving the said motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. The complainant got issued a legal notice on 28-4-2011 which was replied by the opposite party that their repudiation is justified. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to pay the accident benefit amount of Rs.1,20,000/- with int...
Tag this Judgment!