Court : Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
b.c. kandpal, president: 1. this is complainants appeal under section 15 of the consumer protection act, 1986 against the order dated 14.09.2010 passed by the district forum, haridwar in consumer complaint no. 323 of 2008, whereby the district forum has dismissed the consumer complaint. 2. briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainants are husband and wife. the complainant no. 2 smt. vineeta became pregnant and consulted dr. seema gupta of dr. seema maternity home, haridwar for her treatment. on 05.11.2008, dr. seema gupta advised the complainant no. 2 to get her ultrasound done. the complainants thereafter approached opposite party no. 1 dr. ravindra goyal of dhanwantri ultrasound and x-ray centre, haridwar and paid consultation fee of rs.300/-, but they were not provided any receipt for the same. after ultrasound, the complainants were verbally informed that the baby in the womb of the complainant no. 2 is not alive and has died, which caused lot of agony to the complainants. the report of the ultrasound was given on 06.11.2008. the complainant no. 2 was thereafter taken to dr. seema gupta, but she was not available and hence the complainant no. 2 was taken to dr. praduman tyagi, who after check-up told that the baby is alright and advised for another ultrasound from any other laboratory. the complainant no. 2 was then taken to dr. vipin premi of ratan bharti diagnostic centre, haridwar on 05.11.2008, who after .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
b.c. kandpal, president, j. 1. this is insurers appeal under section 15 of the consumer protection act, 1986 against the order dated 18.05.2010 passed by the district forum, haridwar in consumer complaint no. 60 of 2009. by the order impugned, the district forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay the insured amount to the complainant and also to pay sum of rs. 5,000/- towards damages. 2. briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant had purchased a hospitalisation and domiciliary hospitalisation benefit policy (mediclaim policy) from the opposite party no. 1 the new india assurance company limited (appellant before this commission) for himself, his wife and son for assured sum of rs. 2,00,000/- each. the policy was valid for the period from 03.01.2008 to 02.01.2009. prior to the said policy, the complainant had also previously purchased the same policy in the last year, which was valid from 03.01.2007 to 02.01.2008. in the year 2008, the complainant suffered from heart ailment and on 18.09.2008, he was admitted in indraprastha apollo hospital, new delhi, where his angiography was done on 22.09.2008. the complainant was discharged from the hospital on 25.09.2008. the complainant informed the insurance company about his treatment. the insurance company asked the complainant to submit the claim form along with original bills and treatment papers. on 11.11.2008, the opposite party .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
b.c. kandpal, president: 1. this is an appeal under section 15 of the consumer protection act, 1986 against the order dated 06.06.2007 passed by the district forum, nainital in consumer complaint no. 61 of 2006, whereby the district forum has partly allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite parties appellants to pay jointly or severally a sum of rs. 34,745/- to the complainant together with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and rs. 1,500/- towards litigation expenses. 2. briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is a timber merchant. on 19.10.2005, the complainant had purchased a chevrolet tavera car from the opposite party no. 1. the said car was financed by bank of baroda. the complainant had given a demand draft for sum of rs. 8,91,109/- dated 20.10.2005 towards cost of the vehicle to the opposite parties. the vehicle was delivered on 23.10.2005. it is alleged that in the invoice, the cost of the vehicle was mentioned as rs. 8,56,364/-, but the opposite parties have charged sum of rs. 8,91,109/- as cost of the vehicle and this way, the opposite parties have charged excess amount of rs. 34,745/-. alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the district forum, nainital. 3. the opposite parties filed written statement before the district forum and pleaded that the invoice was issued .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
c.c. pant, member, j. 1. this appeal is directed against the order dated 02.01.2008 passed by the district forum, nainital, partly allowing the consumer complaint no. 136 of 2005 and directing the opposite parties to pay to the complainant sum of rs. 4,00,000/- and rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses within a month from the date of the order, failing which the opposite parties shall also be liable to pay interest @9% p.a. on the aforesaid amount from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till the date of actual payment. 2. the facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant smt. gagandeep kaurs husband sh. saravjeet singh got electrocuted on 05.05.2005 when he went to switch off the main switch of the electric connection of his house. according to the complainant, in the night of 04/05.05.2005 at about 1:30 a.m., the main switch, fans, television connections etc. started sparking. her husband went to switch off the main switch so that the house could be saved from catching fire. in this attempt, he got electrocuted. the complainant in an attempt to save the life of her husband, also got electrocuted. both of them were taken to the base hospital, haldwani, where her husband was declared dead by the doctors. however, the doctors saved her life. the incident was investigated by the governments electric inspector, who concluded that the uttarakhand power corporation limited, its executive engineer and deputy general manager, opposite parties in the consumer .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
b.c. kandpal, president: 1. this appeal, under section 15 of the consumer protection act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 11.06.2012 passed by the district forum, udham singh nagar in consumer complaint no. 112 of 2010, whereby the district forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant to settle the claim of the respondent as per the insurance policy within a period of one month and to pay the claim amount to the respondent together with interest @6% p.a. from the date of lodging of the claim till payment and rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses. 2. briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that late sh. sanjay siddhu, the deceased husband of the complainant smt. alka siddhu, during his lifetime, had purchased an insurance policy from the appellant reliance life insurance company limited known as reliance wealth + health plan. the proposal form for the said policy was submitted on 22.09.2008. the sum assured under the said policy was rs. 5,00,000/-, out of which cover of rs. 3,75,000/- was provided for the life of the assured and cover of rs. 1,25,000/- was provided towards medical expenses. it is alleged that for the first time on 04.01.2009, the life assured came to know that he is suffering from liver disease, when he was admitted in rajiv gandhi cancer institute and research centre, delhi, where he died on 07.01.2009. the complainant being the nominee under the policy, lodged the claim with the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
b.c. kandpal, president: 1. this is an appeal under section 15 of the consumer protection act, 1986 against the order dated 25.05.2010 passed by the district forum, haridwar in consumer complaint no. 237 of 2008, whereby the district forum has allowed the consumer complaint against the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and directed them to waive off the demand of rs.2,32,528/- made by them from the complainant and not to initiate any proceedings from recovering any amount from the complainant. the district forum has further directed the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 to pay litigation expenses of rs.2,500/- to the complainant. however, the learned president of the district forum vide dissenting order of the same date, has dismissed the consumer complaint. 2. briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant purchased a vehicle (tata spacio) from opposite party no. 1 oberai motors, p.o. majra, saharanpur road, dehradun on 18.08.2003 for rs.4,03,000/-. out of the said amount, the complainant paid a sum of rs.1,20,000/- in cash to the opposite party no. 1 on various dates and the remaining amount was financed by the opposite party no. 2 ashok leyland finance limited, haridwar. it is alleged that the complainant was regularly paying the loan installment of rs.11,500/- per month to the financier and paid a sum of rs.1,01,500/- to the financier. it is further alleged that on account of non-payment of two installments, the vehicle was .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
b.c. kandpal, president: 1. this is complainants appeal under section 15 of the consumer protection act, 1986 against the order dated 15.02.2010 passed by the district forum, dehradun in consumer complaint no. 156 of 2007. by the order impugned, the district forum has partly allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of rs. 2,83,777/- to the complainant. not satisfied with the relief awarded by the district forum, the complainant has filed this appeal for enhancement. 2. in brief the facts of the case are that in february march 2006, the complainant purchased a truck from the opposite party no. 3 at a cost of rs. 8,08,468/- which was allotted registration no. ua10-4810. the said truck was insured with the oriental insurance company limited for the period from 15.02.2007 to 14.02.2008 at an idv of rs. 6,70,000/-. the truck was registered as goods carriage and goods carriage permit was granted in favour of the complainant by the transport department, uttarakhand. the truck was financed by the opposite party no. 1 m/s tata motors ltd. complainant deposited sum of rs. 81,000/- with the opposite party no. 3 towards margin money and also deposited sum of rs. 7,000/- in cash and sum of rs. 7,20,000/- was financed by the opposite parties. the complainant was regularly paying the loan installments. on 22.06.2007, the opposite party no. 2, on the directions of the opposite party no. 3, illegally and forcibly got the repossession letter of the vehicle .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
b.c. kandpal, president: 1. this appeal, under section 15 of the consumer protection act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 14.09.2006 passed by the district forum, haridwar in consumer complaint no. 356 of 2002, whereby the district forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay the insured amount of rs. 1,00,000/- with accidental benefits to the complainant together with interest @9% p.a. from 12.10.2001, the date of repudiation of the claim till payment and rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses. 2. briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that late sh. sita ram verma, the deceased husband of the complainant smt. yashoda, was posted as assistant teacher in national inter college, dhanauri, haridwar and he died on 14.07.1998 on account of illness. during his lifetime, the life assured had purchased life insurance policy no. 250498871 for assured sum of rs. 1,00,000/- with accidental benefit. on the death of the life assured, the complainant submitted the claim with the insurance company and completed all the formalities, but her claim was repudiated by the insurance company vide letter dated 12.10.2001 on the ground that in the proposal form, the life assured had suppressed the material information with regard to his health and gave wrong answers with regard to his health status. alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a consumer .....
Tag this Judgment!