BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT  HYDERABAD.

FA  516  of 2013  against  CC 91/2011, Dist. Forum, Ananthapur

Between:

1)  The Manager

ICICI Prudential  Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

Adimurthy Nagar,

Ananthapur.

2)  The Authorised Signatory

ICICI Prudential  Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

Vinod Silk Mills Compound

Chakravarthi Ashok Road

Ashok Nagar, Mumbai-400 101.                 ***                         Appellants/

                                                                                                Opposite Parties

And

K. Aswanthnarayana

S/o. Late K. Ramappa

D.No. 7/344-B

Malleswari Road

Court Road,

Ananthapur.                                               ***                       Respondent/

Complainant

Counsel for the Appellant:                          M/s. C.R. Sridharan.

Counsel for the Respondents:                     M/s.  Karanam Ramesh.

CORAM:     

          HON’BLE SRI  JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT

&

                        SRI R. LAXMI NARASIMHA RAO,  HON’BLE MEMBER

Oral Order:  26/03/2014. 

(Per Hon’ble Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada, President)

                                                                   ***

1.                This appeal is directed against the order dt. 31.5.2013  made in  CC 91/2011 on the file  Dist. Forum, Ananthapur whereby the   appellants herein  are directed to  pay Rs.  Rs. 93,794/- towards balance of first operation charges and Rs. 9,24,479/-  spent by the complainant  towards second operation  and treatment expenses  from 19.2.2010 till the death of policyholder.

2)                The facts in a narrow compass are that the complainant’s wife Smt.  P. Pushpalatha had obtained Hospital Care Plan-A policy No. 08552528 on 11.4.2008 for a period of 10 years from the Opposite Parties by paying necessary premium.   While so on 21.11.2008 she was diagnosed that she was suffering from breast cancer for which she was advised to take necessary treatment and surgeries.    Accordingly, as advised by the doctors,  she took treatment from Yashoda Hospital and also undergone surgeries.    She laid claims enclosing  all the documents required along with bills  out of which  an amount of Rs. 83,000/- was only paid leaving a balance of Rs. 93,794/- towards 1^st operation  and Rs. 9,24,479/- towards second operation.   Unfortunately the life assured breathed her last on 6.10.2010.   As the Opposite Parties did not settle the claims,   the complainant was constrained to approach the Dist. Forum by filing the said complaint. 

3)                The Opposite Parties despite service of notice did not put in their appearance nor file  their written version and therefore they were set-exparte. 

4)                The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record and Exs. A1 to A37 marked on behalf of complainant and Exs. X1 to X8  marked on behalf of  Court, the Dist. Forum came to the conclusion  that the complainant is entitled to the amounts claimed under the policy.    As stated supra, the same is assailed by the Opposite Parties by filing the present appeal.

5)                Heard both counsel.

6)                The learned counsel for the appellants mainly contended that said ex-parte order was passed because no advocate represented the appellants herein.    It is his further submission that the advocate who was engaged in Dist. Forum,  to whom Vakalat was issued, failed to enter appearance, pursue the matter and apprise the appellants of the developments.    According to him,  the said advocate also failed to file written version, affidavit evidence nor argued the matter, and in those circumstances only none represented the  appellants and  it is not on their own will.    In those circumstances, the learned counsel requested this Commission to remand the matter back to the Dist. Forum for fresh consideration. 

7)                 The same was opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent stating that except making a bald allegation against the advocate that he did not appear before the Dist. Forum, there is nothing on record to establish that they have initiated action against the advocate concerned.      It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the order impugned cannot be said to be an ex-parte order,  for the reason that the Dist. Forum has gone into the record and decided the case of the complainant on merits.    In those circumstances, the order of the Dist. Forum is justified. 

8)                 From a perusal of the record, it appears that the appellants/Opposite Parties though was represented  by an advocate  he has  not filed written version nor did  he    choose to file affidavit evidence.    Further, he was absent on a number of occasions and also on the day when the case was taken up for hearing.  Definitely, there are laches on the part of  counsel for the appellants, and in those circumstances only, the Dist. Forum has chosen to set-them ex-parte,  and decided the matter based on the available material on record. 

9)                 No doubt, it is true that no action has been initiated against the said advocate of the appellants but we cannot take an adverse inference so far as the appellants are concerned.  It is clear that at no stage of proceedings the appellants  appeared before the Dist. Forum   i.e.,  to file written version, affidavit evidence or hearing.    In our considered view any lis between the parties shall be decided mostly on merits, rather than on technicalities.   All though the appellants have approached us stating that they failed to appear before the Dist. Forum and contested  the matter, in our considered view, the matter requires fresh consideration, however, such indulgence shall not be exercised without penalizing the appellants.    

10)              Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and  the order Dt. 31.5.2013 is hereby  set-aside and CC No. 91/2011  is remanded back to the Dist. Forum, Ananthapur  for fresh consideration, however, on payment of  costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid  to the respondent/complainant Sri K. Aswarthnarayana S/o. Late  K. Ramappa.  After ascertaining the fact  that said costs  are paid, the Dist. Forum shall take up the matter, afford opportunity to appellants/Opposite Parties to file written version, affidavit evidence etc., and proceed for hearing. 

11)               At this juncture the learned counsel for the appellants tried to plead before us stating that the costs are on high side.   We are unable to appreciate the said submission,  as the appellants for the reasons whatsoever simply slept over the matter, and allowed the Dist. Forum to pass order and thereafter they woke up and coming forward with this appeal throwing the blame on the advocate.   A duty is cast on the parties to know the progress of the case.   However, as the learned counsel has pleaded with us, the said costs of Rs. 50,000/- is reduced to Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees  Forty Thousand Only).

12)              In the result this appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the Dist. Forum.  Consequently, the  matter is remanded back to the Dist. Forum for fresh consideration affording sufficient opportunity to both sides  only on payment of costs of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) by the appellants/Opposite Parties to the respondent/complainant.   The Dist. Forum is directed to dispose  of the matter as expeditiously as possible  as this complaint is of the year 2011.

1)       _______________________________

PRESIDENT

2)           ________________________________

MEMBER    

*pnr

UP LOAD – O.K.