KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL 

     COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

           APPEAL:49/2009

                             JUDGMENT DATED:19..01..2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA                                      : MEMBER

The Commissioner,

Kerala Fishermen’s Welfare Fund Board,        : APPELLANT

Matsya Board, Trichur.P.O.

(By Adv:Sri.Asok.M.Cheriyan)

          Vs.

1.Amina, W/o K.A.Moidu,

  Moojimudi House,

  Koipady Kadappuram.P.O, Kumbla,

  Kasaragod,

                                                                             : RESPONDENTS

2.Pallichikunhi, W/o Late Aboobacker,

  Moojimudi House,

  Koipady Kadappuram.P.O, Kumbla,

  Kasaragod,

                                      JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

The appellant/Kerala Fishermen’s Welfare Fund Board is the opposite party in CC:32/06 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikkode.  The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant along with cost of Rs.2000/-.

2. The matter relates to the claim for treatment expenses of the deceased Moidu a fisherman who died on 24..7..2005 on account of chronic increstitial nephritis, chronic renal failure and fluid overload with pulmonary oedema.  The complainants have claimed the medical expenses that amounted to more than Rs.2,00,000/-.

3. The contention of the opposite parties/appellant is that no document of reference by a Government doctor to the private hospital was produced as specified by the scheme, code No:10 under the Kerala Fishermen’s Welfare Fund Board.  It was also pointed out that the amount is limited to Rs.50,000/- as per the scheme.

4. The evidence adduced consisted of Exts.A1 to A15 and B1.

5. It is seen from the documents produced that the deceased was affected by a serious illness and underwent  Haemo dialysis and died soon after discharge from Fr.Muller Medical College & Hospital, Mangalore.  Of course it is specified in the scheme that  the particular reference letter should also be produced along with application.  We find that the opposite party ought not to have raised such a highly technical contention in view of the fact that the fisherman died on account of the serious disease that he was having.  The purpose of the particular provision is to screen false claims and not to reject genuine applications.  We find that there is no merit in the appeal filed.  The appeal dismissed.  The appellant is also directed to pay interest at 12% on the amount of Rs.50,000/- from the date of complaint ie 7..1..2006.  The order of cost is sustained. 

6. The appeal is dismissed as above.

The office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with the copy of this order.

JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER

VL.