KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION No. 29/2019
ORDER DATED: 03.08.2022
(Against the Order in C.C. 171/2019 of CDRF, Palakkad)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.RANJIT. R : MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
REVISION PETITIONER:
HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd., 1st Floor, HDFC House, Mumbai, represented by its Manager Claims, Trivandrum.
(By Adv. Sreevaraham G. Satheesh)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
N.R. Ramamoorthy, Lalasa, Aiswarya Colony, Olavakkode P.O., Palakkad-678 002.
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
The opposite party in C.C. No. 171/2019 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad (District Forum for short) is before us in revision aggrieved by an order dated 10.10.2019 in I.A. No. 132/2019. As per the order under revision a direction has been issued to the revision petitioner to renew the insurance policy of the respondent after accepting an amount of Rs. 49,107/- as the premium.
2. The complaint of the respondent was that he had taken an insurance policy from the revision petitioner which was due for renewal on 23.04.2019. Though the respondent had tendered the amount of Rs. 49,107/- seeking renewal of his policy, he was informed that the premium had been enhanced to Rs. 66,296/-. When he was requested to pay the deficit amount, he approached the District Forum with the complaint.
3. According to Adv. Sreevaraham G. Satheesh who appears for the revision petitioner, by the time the respondent tendered the amount for renewal of the policy, he had completed 70 years of age and therefore, the policy could be renewed only on payment of the enhanced premium. It is contended that, the rule is stipulated by the IRDA and therefore the revision petitioner has no option but to comply with the same. It is therefore contended that the order under revision is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
4. Heard. We notice that the dispute in the present case relates to renewal of the policy for the period commencing from 23.04.2019. Though an interim order was granted by the District Forum the policy of the respondent was not renewed, in compliance with the said order. The said period has also expired. Therefore the interim order passed by the District Forum has become irrelevant due to the passage of time. What can be done at present is only to proceed with the trial and decide whether the respondent was entitled to any relief in the matter.
In view of the above, this revision is allowed. The order under revision is set aside. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad shall proceed to finally dispose of the case in accordance with law. No costs.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RANJIT. R : MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
