NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/385/2010

M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

REJI T.V. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. R.S. RANA

10 Feb 2010

ORDER

Date of Filing: 13 Jan 2010

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/385/2010
(Against the Order dated 28/07/2009 in Appeal No. 890/2003 of the State Commission Kerala)
1. M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.(A Govt. of India Enterprise) Oriental House, P.B. No. 7037, A-25/27, Asaf Ali RoadNew Delhi - 110002 ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. REJI T.V.Thonikada Kalayil House Mangnam PO Kottayam Taluk ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 10 Feb 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Delay in filing the revision, which is of 28 days, is condoned. Heard counsel for the petitioner, who has submitted before us that the complainant had failed to establish that there was any permanent loss to the eye sight; that the complainant was examined after one year of the incident by Medical Board and the Insurance Company is not liable to reimburse in view of clause C of policy. Complaint was dismissed by the District Forum, but the State Commission after detailed analysis found that the complainant had suffered the injury in an accident on 14.2.1999 due to fire crackers hitting on his left eye. Complainant was examined by the doctor who found that the complainant’s vision was reduced to 6/60 in the left eye which was not improving with glass. Ultimately, the complainant was examined by the Medical Board on 26.11.2000 and it was found that the complainant had visual permanent disability which was assessed as 30%. The doctor in cross examination admitted that 30% disability is complete loss of vision. The Medical Board thus had come to the conclusion that the complainant had total loss of vision of left eye and that loss of vision of left eye was irrecoverable. The State Commission has awarded 50% of the sum insured to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum. Order of the State Commission, in our view, is well reasoned, just and equitable and does not call for our interference in revisional jurisdiction as we do not find any material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.


......................JK.S. GUPTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................JR.K. BATTAMEMBER