AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
-WE do not see any merit in this appeal. The complainant who purchased a Nidek AR 800 Auto Refractometer for eye testing had insured it with the 3rd opposite party. On the ground that the machine became faulty and needed to be repaired, he made a claim to the 3rd opposite party which was repudiated by 3rd opposite party. Hence the claim was lodged.
FROM the records, it is clear that the policy was for a period of one year from 20.9.1995 to 19.9.1996. The defect was alleged to be noted by the complainant on 24.9.1995. It is clear from Ex. C1 that Dr. Sadagopan who is operating the same found the defect and informed the complainant. The doctor has given a statement to the investigator under Ex. 05 stating that the defects were found out about a 1 months prior to 26.10.1995 namely long before 24.9.1995. The complainant would say that Dr. Sadagopan informed him that something was wrong with the machine and immediately he phoned up and brought it to the knowledge of the opposite parties, he would say that he put a STD call and informed the opposite party. If it was an STD call, definitely in the phone bill the number would have been noted. The complainant has not chosen to produce the concerned telephone bill to show that informed the opposite party on 24.9.1995. There is nothing on record to show that immediately he informed the opposite party in writing. On the other hand, he has informed the party only on 11.10.1995. The policy commenced from 20.9.1995. Condition No. 5 of the policy mentions clearly that ''the company will not be liable for loss, damage or liability of which no notice has been received by the company within 14 days of its occurrence''. FROM the certificate of the doctor, we find that the defect had occurred long before 24.9.1995. But the complainant has not chosen to inform the opposite party within 14 days. On the other hand, from the records it is clear that the complainant has chosen to go for insurance cover only after coming to know that the machine has developed some defects. Therefore, by suppressing the same, he has taken the insurance cover. Hence, it is clear that the complainant is not entitled to any relief whatsoever. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and, therefore, the lower Forum was justified in rejecting the complaint. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with cost confirming the order passed by the lower Forum. Cost of Rs. 250/-. Time for compliance: Two months. Appeal dismissed.