08.06.2022

ORDER

By Sri Ravishankar, Judicial Member

Heard the arguments of advocate for appellant.

Advocate for appellant submits that the complainant has filed a complaint before the District Commission CC.No.62/2013 alleging deficiency in service in not settling the death claim of the deceased brother.  Further submits that the appellant has filed an application before the District Commission to adduce the evidence of doctor and also calling for the documents to establish that the insured was suppressed the pre-existing disease at the time of taking the policy, but, the same has been dismissed. 

After trial, the District Commission had allowed the complaint and made a finding that this appellant had failed to establish his defence by producing evidence of doctor and directed them to pay a sum of Rs.3,28000/- with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of complaint, till realization.  Whereas we noticed in the order sheet that the appellant had made an effort by making an application to adduce evidence, the same was rejected by the District Commission.  The District Commission ought to allow the application for evidence of the doctor to establish his defence.  After dismissal of the application, the District Commission made an observation that the Opposite Party failed to produce evidence of the doctor in order to establish his defence which is illegal and against to the interest of justice and equity.  Hence, the following;

ORDER

The appeal is allowed.

The order dt.31.08.2015 passed in CC.No.62/2013 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the District Commission directing them to give an opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence of doctor and to dispose-of the matter on merits expeditiously.

                    Sd/-                                                    Sd/-

       (Sunita .C. Bagewadi)                             (Ravishankar)       

                 Member                                        Judicial Member