Mr. R. S. Sharma, who has now put in appearance on behalf of the Petitioner, Indian Overseas Bank (for short “the Bank”), prays for adjournment on the ground that so far he has not received the papers of the case from the office of the Bank at Bangalore. Having regard to the earlier proceedings briefly noted hereunder, we are not inclined to accede to the prayer for adjournment. Notice issued to the Respondent no.1/Complainant notifying the date of hearing before the Circuit Bench on 05.02.2014, had been received back with the postal remarks “addressee deceased”. In view of the said report, Counsel for the Bank sought time to file an application to bring on record the legal representatives of the said Respondent. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to 10.04.2014 for directions. Since 10.04.2014 was declared as a Gazzetted Holiday on account of general elections, the case was taken up on 11.04.2014, but the Bank remained unrepresented. As per office report, the Bank had not taken any steps to bring on record -3- the legal representatives of Respondent no.1. Yet in the interest of justice, a final opportunity was granted to the Bank to take appropriate steps within two weeks of the date of the said order. On the next date, i.e. 02.05.2014, the Bank again remained unrepresented. Since no steps had been taken by the Bank to bring on record the legal representatives of Respondent no.1, despite due information, it was ordered that the Revision Petition qua Respondent no.1 stood abated. Having carefully perused the impugned order, we are of the view that the Revision Petition is bereft of any merit. On the basis of the material on record, both the Fora below have come to the conclusion that repudiation of the claim preferred by the Complainant for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by him for undergoing a Joint surgery was not justified. The Complainant was entitled to reimbursement of Rs.1,81,979/-. There was no dispute on the quantum of the expenses incurred by the Complainant. It has been found that no material had been placed on record in support of their plea that the Complainant had suppressed the factum of his earlier illness as alleged by the Bank and the Insurance Company. While dismissing the Appeals, preferred by the Bank and the Insurance Company, the State Commission has held as under: -4- “There is nothing in the Proposal Form to show that the Complainant has made any statement suppressing the illness etc. Further, the OPs have not even produced the Proposal Forum before the District Forum. OPs have also not produced any evidence to show that the Complainant was suffering from the disease and he had suppressed the same in the proposal form for renewal of the Insurance Policy. As could be seen from the Proposal Form, the only inference that can be drawn is that since there was a break between the previous policy and the policy issued to the Complainant w.e.f. 07.03.2007, it is a fresh policy. However, there is nothing to show that the Complainant is not entitled for reimbursement of the medical expenses towards the surgery which was conducted between 30.04.2007 & 23.05.2007. The OPs are not disputing the expenses incurred by the complainant for the surgery as well as towards the medical expenses. If that is so, in our view, there is no force in the contentions of the OPs that the Complaint is not maintainable for reimbursement of the medical expenses.” There is no pleading in this Revision Petition to the effect that the aforeextracted finding is perverse. It is also significant that the Insurance Company, who as per the order of the District Forum, is also jointly and severally liable to settle the claim in question, has not questioned the correctness of the impugned order before us. -5- We do not find any Jurisdictional error in the impugned order, warranting our interference under the Revisional Jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. |
