Kerala

StateCommission

RP/13/346

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE - Complainant(s)

Versus

C.U PHILIP AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

B RAVIKUMAR

29 Jan 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

REVISION PETITION NO.346/2013

JUDGMENT DATED 29/01/2016

  (RP filed against the order in CC No.488/2010 dt 31/7/2012 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam)

PRESENT:

SHRI. V.V. JOSE                                      :         MEMBER

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR           :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONER:

          M/s. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.

          Represented by its Manager,

XL/1485, First Floor,

Sathgamaya,

M.G. Road, Cochin.

(By Adv:  B. Ravikumar)                    

                   Vs

RESPONDENTS:

1. C.U. Phoulose, Chennattu House,

Thekkumoottil Padi, Piravam.P.O.

 

2.  M/s. Paramount Health Services Pvt. Ltd.,

Sreevihar, 1^st Floor, O.K. Madhavi Amma Road,

Chittoor Road, Kochi.

                

 

 

JUDGMENT

SHRI. V.V. JOSE  :  MEMBER

          This is a revision petition filed by the opposite party against the order of CDRF, Ernakulam in CMP 21/2013 in ST 17/2013 dated 19/3/2013 in C.C.488/10 of the said forum.

          2.  The fact of the case is as follows.  Complainant is a medishield policy holder of the first opposite party.  Complainant underwent treatment in Devamatha Hospital for respiratory infection, hypertension etc. and expended an amount of Rs.12,273/-.  His wife underwent treatment for cervical spondilosis and expended an amount of Rs.2,479/-.  But  the claim was repudiated.  Hence this complaint in the Lower Forum.

          3.  Opposite party/revision petitioner appeared and filed version with a contention that complainant did not produced any mandatory documents. Claim of the complainant was settled for Rs.3,340/- with the available records.  But the claim of the complainant for the treatment of his wife was not admissible as per conditions of the policy.  After considering the rival contentions the forum below passed an order directing the opposite party to reconsider the claim within fortyfive days from the receipt of the order.  The complainant was also directed to submit required mandatory documents within 45 days also.

          4.  According to the revision petitioner the claim of the complainant was reconsidered and a cheque for Rs.2450/- was issued to the complainant.

          5.  The complainant in the meanwhile filed a petition under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act for an action for disobedience of the order and the CDRF has taken cognizance of the same and issued summons to the revision petitioner.

          6.  Being aggrieved by the said order of summons this revision petition.

          7.  The petition in ST 17/2013 in C.C-488/2010 also reveals that Rs.2,450/- has been paid against a claim of Rs.8,933/-.

          8.  Both side was heard.  It appears that the opposite party has reconsidered the claims of the complainant afresh and paid ARs.2,450/-.    If the complainant was aggrieved by the order after reconsideration he should have redressed them through appropriate Forum.

          9.  In the light of the fact that opposite party has reconsidered their stand and paid additional sum after reconsideration, they have duly complied the order of the forum below.  If grievance still persist complainant has to approach appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance afresh.  The opposite party duly complied the order of lower forum and nothing is left available for execution.  Moreover the complaint, after receiving the amount paid initially and after reconsideration, his grievance are appears to have settled until and unless a fresh complaint challenging the legality of the said order is filed before the same forum.  Hence complainant  has not taken any such steps.  Instead he has filed petition under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act and accordingly the forum below issued summons.  In the absence of any order left uncomplied, no such petition is maintainable.  More over invoking the provision of Section 27 is to be done very carefully.  The Lower Forum has not correctly understood the spirit of the said provision.  The process served in ST 17/2013, CMP 21/2013 in   CC No. 488/10 is not legal.  We therefore quash the said order of the forum below.  The revision petition challenging the said process is allowed.

          In the result the revision petition is allowed and the process served and proceedings initiated by the forum below is set aside.  No order of cost.

 

V.V. JOSE          :         MEMBER

 

 K. CHANDRADAS NADAR   :  JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Sa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

                             DISPUTES REDRESSAL                                              COMMISSION,    

                     THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

 

 

 

REV:  PETITION NO.346/2013

JUDGMENT DATED 29/01/2016

 

 

 

Sa.