Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/57/2006

Mrs.Ila J.Parmar - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC of India - Opp.Party(s)

M.Gopalakrishnan

21 Feb 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   26.12.2006

                                                                        Date of Order :   21.02.2016

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.  S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                      : PRESIDENT

        TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I   

                 R. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

C.C.NO.57/2006

TUESDAY THIS 21^ST   DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017

 

Mrs. Ila J.Parmar,

W/o. Sri Jagadish N.Parmar,

No.2, Vembuliamman Koil Street,

First Floor, Alandur,

Chennai  600 016                                                    ..Complainant 

 

                                             ..Vs..

1. The Zonal Manager,

LIC of India,

SZO, LIC Building,

Anna Salai,

Chennai 600 002.

 

2. The Senior Divisional Manager,

Divisional Office-II,

Anna Nagar Plaza,

C-47, II Avenue, Anna Nagar,

Chennai 600 040.

 

3. The Branch Manager,

LIC of India,

City Branch Office No.24,

No.9, Purusaiwalkam High Road,

Chennai 600 007.

 

4. C. Raghavan,

LIC Agent,

Member, Chairman’s Club for Agents,

Life Insurance Corporation of India,

No.2/117, New Colony,

Kottivakkam,

Chennai 600 041.                                                  ..Opposite parties.

 

For the Complainant           :    M/s. M.Gopikrishnan & another   

For the opposite parties 1 to 3      :    M/s. A.Panneerselvam

For the opposite party-4              :    Exparte.

ORDER

THIRU. S. PANDIAN,

 

 Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay a  sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the death claim under policy and also to pay sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards deficiency of service and also to pay cost of the complaint.

Complainant is called absent, even notice served for clarification of the settlement memo  filed by the opposite parties 1 to 3 along with the settlement letter given by the complainant.    In spite of notice served, the complainant is called absent, no other representation made.  Hence Memo for settled out of court is recorded.  Hence the complaint is dismissed as settled out of court.  No cost.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.