KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 281/2019
JUDGMENT DATED:01/07/2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 259/2017 of DCDRC, Thiruvananthapuram)
PRESENT:
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:
Nawshath Beegam, W/o.Abdul Latheef, Prathreeksha, T.C.11/786(13), Krishna Nagar, Ulloor, Pattom.P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. S.Manikantan Nair)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS/OPPOSITE PARTIES:
- The Managing Director, India Health Insurance TPA Pvt. Ltd., Regional Office EL 63/521, Kasim Lane, Near St.Augustine School, kalloor, Cochin – 686 668.
- The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., CWC Building, LMS Compound, Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram.
JUDGMENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is an appeal filed under Sec.15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram [District Commission in short].
2. On 16/07/2019 the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed by the District Commission as the complainant remained absent. The complaint was filed against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service with respect to a medi care policy issued by the 1st opposite party . The complainant had availed the medi care policy for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the 2nd opposite party for a period of one year. When the said policy was existence the father of the complainant was admitted in KIMS hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. The complainant had remitted a sum of Rs.2,09,352/- for the treatment. As per the medi care policy the opposite parties are bound to indemnify the complainant. When the claim was raised a sum of Rs.90,000/- alone was sanctioned and the claim pertaining to the balance amount was rejected. The complainant had alleged deficiency in service and hence the complaint was filed. Though the opposite parties were served with notices and the copies of the complaint both of them did not file any version and they were set ex parte. When the matter was posted for recording the evidence of the complainant he could not reach the Commission in time and the complaint was dismissed.
- In the appeal memorandum it is alleged that the complainant and his counsel had reached the District Commission immediately after calling the case and there was no intentional omission on the part of the appellant and her counsel. As both of them were held up in a heavy traffic block he could not reach the District Commission in time. The appellant would seek for setting aside the order passed by the District Commission.
- Notices were served on respondents. They entered appearance through counsel.
5. Heard both sides. Perused the records received from the District Commission.
6. The complaint was filed as per the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The Consumer Protection Act does not provide a provision for restoration of the complaint. In such a circumstance the District Commission ought not have dismissed the complaint without ascertaining the actual cause for the absence of the complainant. The reason stated by the appellant regarding his absence on 16/07/2019 does appear to be true and correct. Depriving an opportunity to a litigant to have an adjudication on merits on technical reasons will work out against the interest of justice. So we find that the order of dismissal dated 16/07/2019 passed by the District Commission is liable to be reversed.
In the result the appeal is allowed. Order dated 16/07/2019 dismissing the complaint is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the District Commission for disposal of the complaint as per law.
AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
