BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT  HYDERABAD.

FA  655 of 2013  against  CC 51/2012,  Dist. Forum, Vizianagaram

Between:

Bajaj Life  Insurance  Company Ltd.,

GE Plaza, Airport Road,

Yerrawada, Pune-411 008

Maharashtra State                                      ***                         Appellant/

                                                                                                Opposite Party     

And

Smt. Suru Rohini

W/o. Late  Sreenivasa Rao

R/o. Cheepurupalli (V&M)

Vizianagaram Dist.                                      ***                       Respondent/

Complainant

Counsel for the Appellant:                          M/s.  G. Anand Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent:                       M/s.  P. Gopala Krishna

CORAM:     

          HON’BLE SRI  JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT

                          SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

&

                              SRI  S. BHUJANGA RAO,  HON’BLE MEMBER

Oral Order :  10/03/2014 

(Per Hon’ble Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada, President)

                                                                   ***

1)                M/s. Bajaj Life  Insurance  Company Ltd., is the appellant and this appeal is filed challenging the order  dt. 28.1.2013  in CC 51 of 2012 on the file of Dist. Forum, Vizianagaram  whereby the complaint  filed by the respondent herein was allowed  and the appellant was directed to pay  Rs. 3 lakhs with interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of death of the deceased till the date of payment together with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs. 2,000/-. 

2)                It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the  appellant that for obvious  reasons they could not contest the matter, and in those circumstances, subsequent to pronouncement of orders, it came to light that the  husband of the respondent herein had undergone  treatment at Nizam’s

Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS) prior to obtaining of the policy, and in those circumstances,  the respondent’s husband is not entitled to any amount under the said policy. 

3)                From a  perusal of the order, it is clear that the appellant did not contest the matter and the Dist. Forum below  had clearly observed that the contents of the complaint  and chief affidavit of the complainant are remained un-controverted for the reason that the appellant/opposite party  did not contest the matter.    In those circumstances,  we are of the view that  the matter requires  reconsideration, and we are  inclined to set-aside the said order, and remand the matter  to the Dist. Forum for fresh hearing. 

4)                Accordingly, this appeal is allowed  setting aside the order of the Dist. Forum  passed in CC No. 51/2012 dt. 28.1.2013  on payment of costs of  Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only)  to be  paid to the respondent/complainant within a period of four weeks.    On ascertaining the fact that said costs of Rs. 50,000/- are paid, then only,  the Dist.  Forum may take up the matter and dispose of  the same  in accordance with law i.e., granting of time to the Opposite Party/Appellant  to file its written version, affidavit evidence etc.  The Dist. Forum is hereby directed to dispose of the said CC  on  receipt of costs  Rs. 50,000/-  by the respondent/complainant,  within a period of  three months from the said date.   

1)      _______________________________

PRESIDENT        

2)           ________________________________

MEMBER  

3)           ________________________________

MEMBER  

*pnr

UP LOAD – O.K.