KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
COMMON ORDER IN FIRST APPEAL NOS.489/2010 AND 588/2010
JUDGMENT DATED: 28.5.2011
PRESENT
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
FIRST APPEAL 489/2010
1. Mahindra & Mahindra : APPELLANTS
Financial Services Ltd. Rep.by
Managing Director,
Sadhana House, 2nd Floor Behind
Mahindra Towers,
570 P.B. Marg Work, Mumbai.
2. Branch Manager,
Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.,
2nd Floor, T.M.Complex,
Chandra Nagar, Palakkad.
3. Branch Manager,
Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.,
Cochin.
(By Adv.Poovappally M.Ramachandran Nair)
Vs.
1. Baby.C.S. ,w/o Mani : RESPONDENTS
Choorakode Puliyankad House, Palakkad.
2. Deputy Chief Manager,
Claim’s Department, Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual
Life Insurance Ltd., 9th Floor,
Godres Coliseum,
Behind Everard Nagar Sian(E), Mumbai.
(By Adv.
FIRST APPEAL588/2010
Kotak Mahindra old Mutual life insurance. : APPELLANT
Limited, Mumbai.
(By Adv.P.Fazil)
Vs.
1. Baby.C.S. ,w/o late Mr.Mani : RESPONDENTS
Choorakode Puttiyankad House,
Cheraya, Kongad, Palakkad.
2. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.,
Rep.by Manaigng Director,
Sadhana House, 2nd Floor, Behind
Mahindra Towers,
570 P.B. Marg Work, Mumbai.
3. Branch Manager,
Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.,
2nd Floor, T.M.Complex,
Chandra Nagar, Palakkad.
4. Branch Manager,
Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.,
Cochin.
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
The appellants in A.489/10 are the opposite parties 1 to 3 the Financiers and the appellants in A.588/2010 is the insurer in CC.64/08 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The appellants are under orders to cancel the loan amount of Rs.4,32,601/- taken by the complainant’s deceased husband. The appellants/opposite parties 1 to 3 are directed to return back the amount of Rs.54450/- remitted by the complainant towards monthly instalments with 12% interest from 15.12.07 to date of order and also cost of Rs.2000/-.
2. The matter is with respect to the repudiation of the policy availed by the deceased husband of the complainant from the 4th opposite party/Insurance Company for purchasing a tractor for which finance was provided by the opposite parties 1 to 3. The policy coverage is from 28.2.2007 onwards and the assured died on 14.4.07 ie within two months of availing the policy. As per the terms of the policy in case of death the remaining instalments of the loan amount is not to be paid. The assured died on account of lever cirrohosis. It is the case of the 4th opposite party/insurer that the complainant has suppressed material facts with respect to his health. According to the complainant, the wife of the deceased the assured died of jaundice.
3. The evidence adduced consisted for the testimony of DW1; Exts.A1 to A7 and B1. The respective parties have also filed proof affidavits.
4. It is seen that the documents filed alongwith the version of the 4th opposite party is not seen in the case bundle and the same has not been considered from the Forum also. It is mentioned in the version itself that the documents are produced and mentioned as Annexures 1 to 7. Evidently the case has not been properly contested before the Forum on behalf of the counsel for the insurer. He has failed to see that the documents are marked. DW1 the doctor of the Mother Hospital wherein the deceased was under treatment at the time of his death has deposed that the deceased was suffering from cirrohosis of liver since November 2004. The appellant in A.588/10 insurer has produced the documents alongwith the appeal memorandum. One of the documents is the declaration signed by the deceased before availing the policy wherein it is pointed out that the deceased has declared in the questionnaire wherein “not suffering from and not been hospitalized for any disease or liver failure. It is the contention of the counsel for the respondent/complainant that liver failure is the condition when atleast 80% of the liver is damaged. The opposite party has not produced any authority to support the contention. According to him liver failure is not liver cirrohosis. In the circumstance we find that the matter requires further detailed consideration. The documents allegedly produced by the 4th opposite party/insurer has to be considered. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Forum. The forum will permit the parties to adduce further evidence if any and dispose of the case on merits.
5. The case posted before the Forum on 22..7..2011.
Office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with the copy of this order urgently.
JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
ps
