Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/56/2013

S. AMBILI - Complainant(s)

Versus

T.T.K. HEALTHCARE SERVICES PVT. LTD., MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

K. RAJASEKARAN

29 Apr 2022

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

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

                                          Thiru.R.VENKATESA PERUMAL                            ::   MEMBER

 

FA. No. 56/2013

  (Against the order in C.C. No.996/2009 dated 6.11.2012 on the file of the DCDRC, Chennai(South)

                                                              DATED THIS THE 29^TH  DAY OF APRIL 2022

 

Mrs.S.Ambili,

No.K, 122, A-2,

Bougan Villa Apartments,

Anna Nagar East,

Chennai                                                               ..Appellant/complainant

 

                                             Vs

 

1.T.T.K.Healthcare Services Pvt.Ltd,

Rep.by its Manager,

“Ammol Palani” No.88,

G.N.Chetty Road, L-2,

T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017               

 

2.ICICI Lombard General Ins.Company Ltd,

Rep.by its Authorised Signatory,

Regd.Office,

ICICI Bank Towers,

Bandra Kurla Complex,

Mumbai – 400 051                                         ..Respondents/opposite parties

 

Counsel for the Appellant/complainant             : M/s M.R.Gokula Krishnan(Undertakes)

1^st Respondent                                              : Served called absent

2^nd Respondent                                             : Cover returned as left

 

          This appeal coming on before us for hearing today, this commission made the following order in open court :-

                                                  Docket order

          No representation for both. This appeal is posted today for appearance of appellant and for filing vakalat for appellant and for production of paper publication taken to R2 or for dismissal. When this matter was called at 11.00 A.M, there is no representation for the appellant. Hence the matter was passed over and again called at 12.30 noon, but the appellant was again not present. Since the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the case, the appeal is dismissed for default. No cost.

  Sd/-                                                                                                               Sd/-

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                    R.SUBBIAH

MEMBER                                                                                                  PRESIDENT