A.SAIRAM Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A reading of the complaint discloses these facts. The complainant is a doctor running paragaon Maternity and Surgical Hospital since 3 years. Originally he started Maternity hospital at premises No. 13 -6 -437/1. Karol Bagh. opposite Padmanabhanagar Colony. Mehdipatnam. Hyderabad. He purchased equipment i.e. Cautery Machine Electro Surgical unit and paragaon Maternity and Surgical Hospital Glow sign board etc. He insured the same with second opposite party under policy No. 050304/11/ 0151/91 on 30 -8 -1991. The complainant shifted the said Maternity and Surgical Hospital from premises No. 13 -6 -439/1. Karol Bagh to 9 -4 -84/4. Kakatiyanagar Colony. Hyderabad in January 1992. While so in the early hours of 2 -2 -1992 on the eve of Jummeki -raat festival there was procession and riot took place near the hospital as a result of which the mob rushed inside the hospital and some unsocial elements smashed totally the glowing sign board and took away Diathermy and Foetal doppler units which were being used for surgical and obstetrical purposes. The said two units are portable and the cost of Foetal doppler is Rs. 50.385/ - while Diathermy(Cautery) machine costs Rs. 95.731.50. Glow sign board was purchased for Rs. 15.000/ - Theft was committed in the early hours of 2 -2 -1992 taking advantage that on the eve of festival Muslims observe throughout the night. The complainant came to know about the offence at 6 -00 a.m. on

(2.) -2 -1992. Immediately he gave a police complaint and informed the second opposite party on 3 -2 -1992 where upon the latter registered the claim and appointed a surveyor. The surveyor visited the hospital on 4 -2 -1992 and asked for certain information including some photographs. The complainant has not received the alleged letter on 30 -4 -1992 sent by the surveyor. The surveyor asked for copy of the FIR. However the surveyor without conducting any enquiry appears to have submitted his report, the copy of which was never sent to the complainant. Later the matter was entrusted to independent investigator for further investigation. 2. Accordingly M/s. Deshpande Associates visited the premises of the complainant and asked the complainant to furnish the details about the equipments and their invoices. All these material was already furnished to the second opposite party. Thereafter the complainant addressed number of letters to the said investigators to complete the investigation However without doing any kind of investigation in the matter inspite of several letters sent by the complainant M/s. Deshpande Associates sent a letter dated 26 -11 -1992 with false allegations stating as if the complainant had agreed to withdraw the case. The correspondence would show that the complainant has been vigorously pursuing his claim and requested the second opposite party many a time to settle his claim expeditiously. The complainant understands that there is no survey report. Even MI s. Deshpande Associates failed to investigate into the matter. However the second opposite party finally sent a letter dated 8 -31993 to the complainant stating that they have examined the matter on all aspects and as revealed in the survey and in view of the fact the police authorities did not book a case of rioting and in the absence of any vouchers or cash receipts for the purchases, they could not see any evidence of damage to the property and accordingly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming a sum of Rs. 5,71,116 -50 ps. being the value of the loss of property insured together with compensation.

(3.) The second opposite party filed its counter admitting the insurance under the policy bearing No. 050304/11/0151/91 to the complainant which was valid from 30 -8 -1991 to 29 -8 -1992. The address of the insured was mentioned as Dr. A. Sairam, Paragon Maternity and Surgical Hospital, Opp. Padmana -bhagar bus stop, 13 -6 - . 437/1. Padmabhanagar Colony, Mehdipatnam Hyderabad. The building was insured for Rs. 2,50,000/ - while maternity and accessories for Rs.3,50,000/ - and stocks for Rs. 10,000/ - furniture and other contents were insured for Rs. 1.25.000/ - Thus the policy was issued for a total sum of Rs. 7,35.000/ - It is denied that any rioting took place on the intervening nigh t of 1/2 - 2 -1992 near the hospital or in the ground or first floor of the same building where the complainant was residing or even in the vicinity. There was no report made by anybody in the neighborhood. The complainant submitted some documents only on 6 -6 -1992 to the surveyor. Except the invoices about the cost of equipment no other documents were furnished. The police booked only a petty case. The photographs furnished by the complainant only show minor damage. The surveyor estimated the loss of Rs. 7.000/ - M/s. Deshpande Associates submitted their report on 18 -1 -1994 which clearly indicates that the complainant was making fraudulent claim. The said report pointed out several anomalies and inconsistent versions of the complainant. It is further stated that it is only after shifting the hospital from Karol Bagh to Kakatiyanagar in January, 1992 and after the alleged incident the second opposite party was informed about it. Even the nurse that purported to have informed the complainant could not be contacted. The allegations against the surveyor and the investigator are denied. It is asserted that inspite of repeated requests ¢ the complainant failed to furnish full information to them.