KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.844/03 JUDGMENT DATED 20.3.2010 PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER National Insurance Co.Ltd. Branch Office, P.B.No.1797 -- APPELLANT Chitoor Road, Ernakulam – 682 016. (Saji Issac.K.J) Vs. K.K.Kunjappan, S/0 Kuriakose, Kandakkottil House -- RESPONDENT Ramamangalam.P.O, Muvattupuzha. JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 27.6.03 passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in OP.142/03. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd; Branch office, Ernakulam in repudiating the medi- claim preferred by the complainant. The opposite party was served with notice in the matter; but the opposite party remained ex-parte. On the side of the complainant proof affidavit was filed along with 4 documents. The documents were marked as A1 to A4. A1 is the medi-claim policy issued by the opposite party for the period from 22.2.02 to 21.2.03. A2 is the certificate issued from LisieHospital, Ernakulam. It would show that the complainant had undergone Coronary Angiogram in that hospital. It would also show that since 20.6.02 the complainant was having precordial pain. There is nothing to show that the complainant was pre-existing disease at the time of taking the policy. There is also nothing to show that the complainant was aware of any such illness at the time of taking the medi claim policy. So, the opposite party cannot be justified in repudiating the claim for Rs.6749/-. A3 is the repudiation letter issued by the opposite party. The reason or ground stated for repudiating the claim was that the complainant was having pre-existing disease. But, the opposite party/Insurance Company failed to substantiate their case regarding pre-existing disease. A4 medical certificate issued by the Doctor who treated the complainant would show that the disease started from 20.6.02. Thus, the available documentary evidence would strengthen the case of the complainant. It would also disprove the case of the opposite party in A3 repudiation letter. The Forum below has rightly directed the opposite party/Insurance Company to honour the claim for Rs.6749/- with cost of Rs.500/-. We do not find any reason or ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the forum below. The present appeal lacks, bonafides and merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Hence we do so. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated27/6/03 passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in OP.142/03 is confirmed. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER | 
