KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO:604/2003 JUDGMENT DATED: 20.11.2007
PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER Manager (L & HPF) LIC of India, Divisional Office,: APPELLANT Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv.G.S.Kalkura)
Vs.
Krishnakumari Amma, Sreerangam, Eravichira East, : RESPONDENT Sooranad Post, Kollam. (By Adv.K.B.Sreekumar)
JUDGMENT
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is an appeal preferred from the order dated:13..6..2003 passed by CDRF, Kollam in OP:655/2000. The aforesaid complaint in OP:655/00 was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellant/LIC as opposite party claiming the insurance amount of Rs.50,000/- due to the complainant as nominee of the deceased insured. The opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground of suppression of material facts regarding the serious ailment of stomach cancer suffered by the insured. There is no dispute regarding the policy issued by the 1st opposite party in the name of the insured Gopalakrishna Pillai. The policy was taken on 8..9..1998 from the opposite party, LIC Karunagappally branch. The lower forum did not accept the contention taken by the opposite party regarding suppression of material facts with respect to the alleged disease of stomach cancer. So, the lower forum found deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in repudiating the insurance claim made by the complainant as nominee of the insured Gopalakrishna Pillai who died on 29..6..1999. Thereby the lower forum directed the opposite party to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- representing the insured amount with 9% interest from the date of the complaint. The opposite party is also directed to pay the compensation of Rs.2000/- with a cost of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the present appeal is preferred. We heard the counsel for the appellant/opposite party and the respondent/complainant. The learned counsel for the appellant requested for allowing I.A.470/07 for accepting the documents which were produced at this appellate stage. The aforesaid petition is supported by an affidavit sworn to by the Manager, LIC of India, Divisional Office, Pattom. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the LIC could not produce these documents before the lower forum and that the lower forum did not give them the opportunity to adduce documentary evidence by examining the concerned doctor who treated the insured for the alleged illness of stomach cancer. Thus, the appellant requested for remitting the matter to the lower forum for fresh disposal. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant vehemently opposed the aforesaid request for remitting the matter to the lower forum. It is further submitted that the opposite party had ample opportunity to produce these documents and adduce oral evidence in support of the contention, but they did not adduce any evidence to substantiate the contention regarding the alleged illness of stomach cancer. Points that arise for consideration are:- The request of the appellant/opposite party to remit the matter to the lower forum can be allowed in the light of the late production of the documents at this appellate stage. Is their any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the lower forum in OP:655/00.
POINTS 1 & 2 The complaint in OP:655/00 was filed on 11..10..2000 and the opposite party filed version on 19..11..2000. The witnesses from the side of the complainant and opposite party were examined on 3..7..2001 and 16..8..2001. There after, the opposite party/appellant/LIC was seeking time to adduce further evidence in the matter. They also moved the lower forum for issuance of summons to a witness for proving the case that the insured was suffering from stomach cancer even prior to the issuance of the life insurance policy. It is true that the witness did not turn up. But there after the opposite party did not take any further steps to get the witness examined on their side to substantiate the contention. Another important aspect to be noted at this juncture is the failure on the part of the opposite party in producing the documents before the lower forum. As per I.A.417/04 appellant/opposite party has produced documents in support of their case. The crucial documents cited by the appellant/opposite party to substantiate their case regarding the alleged illness of stomach cancer suffered by the insured are the documents issued from Mariyanam Hospital, Sooranadu dtd:5..1..2000, letter dated:1..11..99 issued from Pearl Hospital, Karunagappally, treatment certificate dted:7..10..99 issued by Dr.Thomas Alexander, V.S.M. Hospital, Mavelikkara, another medical certificate dtd:16..10..99 issued by Dr.M.K.Sheji,Pearl Hospital, Karunagappally and the attested copy of the case sheet from Regional Cancer Centre, Trivandrum. The aforesaid medical documents were in the possession of the opposite party as early as in the year 1999 and 2000. The dates of issue of those documents would make it clear that the opposite party was in possession of these documents even prior to the filing of the complaint in OP:655/00. But no explanation is forthcoming from the side of the opposite party/appellant for their failure or omission to produce these documents before the lower forum. There is not even a whisper in the affidavit filed in support of the petition stating the reason or ground for non production of these documents before the lower forum. These circumstances would even create a doubt about the genuineness and correctness of these documents. Any how we are not considering the merits of these documents at this stage. It is crystal clear that there was negligence and laches on the part of the opposite party in defending the complaint in OP:655/00. It is to be noted that the complainant who is the widow of the deceased insured. She approached the opposite party in the year 1999 itself with the claim to get the insured amount. At one stage the opposite party repudiated the claim. There after the opposite party invited the complainant for a settlement. Ultimately the opposite party was not prepared to pay the insured amount to the complainant. Thereby the complainant was forced to approach the lower forum with the complaint in OP:655/00. The available evidence adduced before the lower forum would make the claim of the complainant reasonable and legally sustainable. The lower forum has rightly awarded compensation and the insurance amount to the complainant. The lower forum cannot be found fault in passing the impugned order. The impugned order is well reasoned and well founded. We are not in a position to interfere with the impugned order passed by the lower forum. But the documents now produced by the appellant/opposite party at this appellate stage would give an indication that the opposite party is justified in taking such a contention before the lower forum; but there occurred inordinate delay, negligence, laches and lapses on the part of the appellant/opposite party in producing these documents before the lower forum. Another interesting aspect to be noted at this juncture is the late production of these documents before this appellate forum. The present appeal was preferred by the appellant/opposite party in the year 2003. It is to be noted that the documents now produced before this commission were in their possession even prior to the institution of the complaint in OP:655/00. But there is no whisper in the Appeal Memorandum about these documents which were in their possession. These documents (as per I.A.417/07) have been produced after a lapse of more than 3 years of the filing of the present appeal. Thus in all respects the appellant/opposite party was negligent. There occurred omission, lapses and laches in producing these documents. Another aspect to be noted is that the poor complainant was dragged on all these years without producing these documents. So, we are of the view that the matter can be remanded to the lower forum, for adducing further evidence on the side of the opposite party, on terms of heavy cost of Rs.10,000/-. In the result the appeal is allowed on terms of cost of Rs.10,000/-. It is to be paid to the complainant within 30 days from this date failing which this appeal will stand dismissed. On payment of cost the matter will be remitted back to the lower forum for fresh disposal in accordance with law. It is made clear that both the parties should be given an opportunity to adduce further evidence in the matter. For payment cost the appeal is posted to 21..12..2007.
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER | 
