Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/134/2023

MAX Life Insurance Co. Ltd., - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mrs. K.Megala, W/o Late Mr. Kailash - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. V. Samuthiravijayan

23 Jun 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH  : PRESIDENT

                 THIRU R  VENKATESAPERUMAL          :    MEMBER

F.A. No. 134/2023

(Against the Order made in C.C.No.07/2019, dated:30.06.2022 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C., Erode)

 

DATED THE 23^RD DAY OF JUNE 2023

 

Max Life Insurance Co. Limited,

Through its Manager,

Having its Branch office at:

Muthaiah Complex, 3^rd Floor,

Mettur Road,

Erode.                                         .. Appellant / 2^nd Opposite party. 

 

-Versus-

1. Mrs. K. Megala,

W/o. (Late) Mr. Kailash,

Door No.5/4, Ilupuli Village,

Thiruchengode Circle,

Namakkal District.                         .. 1^st Respondent / Complainant.  

 

2. Axis Bank Ltd.,

100/10, SSD Road,

Near State Bank of India,

Tiruchengode,

Namakkal District.                .. 2^nd Respondent /  1^st Opposite party.  

 

Counsel for the Appellant /

2^nd Opposite party                     : M/s. V. Samuthiravijayan

 

Counsel for the 1^st Respondent /

Complainant                              : M/s. C. Paraneedharan                         

The 1^st Respondent as complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties 1 & 2 praying for certain directions.  The District Commission had passed an ex-parte order, allowing the complaint. Against the said ex-parte order, this appeal is preferred by the 2^nd opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt. 30.06.2022 in C.C. No.07/2019.

                This petition came before us for hearing finally, today and upon hearing the arguments of the Appellant, perusing the documents, lower court records and the order passed by the District Commission, this Commission made the following order in the open court.

ORDER

Thiru.R VENKATESA PERUMAL , MEMBER                      

        1.  The 2^nd  opposite party before the District Commission is the appellant herein.

        2. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that her husband is doing business with the help of Rig Vehicle for the past 14 years in the name and style of Srivari High Power.  The complainant’s husband was having Current a/c  vide No.916020080171726 with the 1^st opposite party.   In the mean time, he had taken Life Insurance policy with the 2^nd opposite party.  The sum assured is Rs.12,00,000/- and the yearly premium amount is Rs.69,666/- to be payable for the period of 22 years.  The complainant’s husband paid Rs.69,666/- on 02.08.2017 towards the first premium to the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant’s husband appointed the complainant as nominee for the said policy.    After the said policy came into effect, the complainant’s husband fell ill and was admitted in KMCH Speciality Hospital on 07.11.2017 and thereafter, discharged on 13.11.2017.  Again on 13.06.2018, the complainant’s husband suddenly fell sick and was admitted in the ICU Ward in the GEM Hospital and died on the same day.    Immediately on 06.09.2018, a claim form was submitted to the 2^nd opposite party.  But the said claim was repudiated by the 2^nd opposite party on 29.09.2018.  On 29.10.2018, the 2^nd opposite party credited the insurance premium amount of Rs.69,666/- which was paid by the complainant’s husband in the 1^st opposite party bank account.  But the 2^nd opposite party denied the payment of sum assured of Rs.12,00,000/- to the complainant.   The act of the  2^nd opposite party caused great mental agony. Thus, alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the complaint before the District Commission claiming, the sum assured of Rs.12,00,000/- from the 2^nd opposite party and also further direction to opposite parties 1 & 2 and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. and cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

3.     Though notice has been served on the 2^nd opposite party, he has not chosen to appear before the District Commission and hence, the 2^nd opposite party was set exparte.  Consequently, the District Commission passed an ex-parte order by dismissing the complaint as against the 1^st opposite party and directing the 2^nd opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.11,30,334/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% from 29.09.2018 till realisation, to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and to pay the cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a..

4.     Aggrieved over the said order, this appeal is preferred by the 2^nd opposite party praying for setting aside the order and for a chance to contest the case on merits. 

5.     Before this Commission, the counsel for the appellant /2^nd opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on their part.  The appellant sent the Vakalathnama through a local Counsel and instructed him to appear before the District Commission.   But the local Counsel failed to appear before the District Commission and the case was proceeded exparte as against the appellant.  Therefore, he sought to set aside the order of the District Commission and prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merits.

5. When the case had come up before this Commission on 09.06.2023, after hearing the submission of the appellant, this Commission had felt that there is some force in the arguments of the counsel for the appellant / 2^nd opposite party and therefore, in order to give a chance to the 2^nd opposite party to agitate their right on merits, was inclined to allow this appeal by remanding the matter to the District Commission, to dispose of the case on merit.   However, considering the lethargic attitude of the 3^rd opposite party in not appearing before the District Commission, we imposed a cost of Rs.3,000/- to be paid to the Legal Aid Account of the State Commission on or before 22.06.2023.  Today, when the matter appeared in the list it was reported that the condition imposed by this Commission has been complied with.    Hence, this appeal is allowed today by remanding back the complaint to the District Commission for fresh disposal according to law. 

         In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Consumer Commission, Erode in C.C. No.07/2019 dt.30.06.2022, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Erode for fresh disposal according to law and on merits.

 The District Commission is directed to issue notice to all the parties for their appearance and on such appearance, directed to proceed with the case and dispose the same within three months according to law and on merits.

The amount deposited by the appellant / 2^nd opposite party shall remain in the custody of this Commission, till the disposal of the original complaint.

 

   R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                        R. SUBBIAH

                 MEMBER                                            PRESIDENT

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

 

KIR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/June/2023

Index :  Yes/ No