Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) This petition is filed in order to challenge the order/ award dated 26.2.2015 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS) Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as "the Lok Adalat").
(2.) In brief, respondent No.1 obtained a mediclaim policy from the petitioner for the period from 18.3.2012 to 17.3.2013 for a sum of Rs. 3 lacs. Respondent No.1 met with an accident on 4.6.2012. His right eye was damaged. He was taken to Paras Hospital, Gurgaon where he remained as an indoor patient from 4.6.2012 to 24.6.2012 and spent a sum of Rs. 5,16,370/-on his treatment. The amount claimed by respondent No.1 from the petitioner on the basis of the mediclaim policy was turned down and hence, he filed an application under Section 22(c) of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (for short, "the Act") before the Lok Adalat for payment of the insurance amount of Rs. 3 lacs with interest. The application has been allowed by the Lok Adalat on 26.2.2015 directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 3 lacs within 40 days failing which the petitioner was made liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of application till the date of payment.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No.1 had also filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the driver, owner and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle. The said application/ MACT Case No.87 of 2012 is decided in favour of respondent No.1 by the MACT Tribunal, Gurgaon (for short, "the Tribunal") and a sum of Rs. 7,72,300/- is awarded which includes medical bills of Rs. 5,91,800/-. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since respondent No.1 has been paid the expenditure incurred by him in his treatment by the Tribunal, the amount of Rs. 3 lacs is not liable to be paid by the petitioner as it would amount to double payment towards medical treatment and a case of unjust enrichment. In support of his submission, he has relied upon decision of the Delhi High Court rendered in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shiela Avinashi and others, 2014 ACJ 320, decision of the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) in the case of Cholamandalam Ms. General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. A. Saravanan and another, 2013 ACJ 1437 and a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others v. Patricia Jean Mahajan and others, 2002 6 SCC 281.;