KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.968/04
JUDGMENT DATED 13.9.2010
PRESENT
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
Paul Sebastian Attokkaran,
Attokkaran House, “Yeshukripa”
Aiswariya Gardens, Chiyyaram, -- APPELLANT
Thrissur-26.
(By Adv.G.S.Kalkura)
Vs.
The Manager,
National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Divisional Office, -- RESPONDENT
M/s.Kollannur Devassy Smarak Building,
Thrissur.
(By Adv.Rajan P Kaliyath)
JUDGMENT
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER
Appellant was the complainant and respondent was the opposite party in OP.395/01 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties/Insurance Company and claimed a total of Rs.1,25,000/- as compensation. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. It was contended that the policy was lapsed on March 2000 and thereafter the opposite party/Insurance Company was not interested in renewing the policy and so the policy was not renewed. It is further contended that four set of medical bills produced by the complainant/insured with respect to the previous period are not supported by claim forms. Thus, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
2. Before the Forum below, Exts.P1 to P9 documents were produced and marked on the side of the complainant and Exts.R1 to R34 on the side of the opposite party/insurance company. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 30th September 2004 dismissing the complaint on the ground of misjoinder of cause of action. The complainant was also given the liberty to file separate and proper petitions based on the separate cause of action. It is against the dismissal of the complaint in OP.395/01 the present appeal is filed by the complainant therein.
3. We heard both sides.
4. There is no dispute that the appellant/complainant was holder of a mediclaim insurance policy bearing No.570700/42/03. Admittedly, the aforesaid policy was up to March 2000. It is the definite case of the appellant/complainant that after March 2000 no mediclaim policy was issued by the respondent/opposite party as the Insurance Company was not interested in renewing the mediclaim policy after March 2000. The case of the appellant/complainant is that he was hospitalized on 27.2.2000 for cardiac problem. It is further stated in the complaint that he was admitted in Jubily Mission Hospital, Thrissur. But, the date of the aforesaid hospitalization in Jubily Mission Hospital, Thrissur is not mentioned. It is also stated that the appellant/complainant was referred to Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam where he had undergone treatment for Anjina and he had undergone the surgical procedure Angioplasty. It is not stated as to the date of his hospitalization in Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam. The averments in Para 4 of the written complaint would show that the said hospitalization and treatment were after March 2000. There was no mediclaim policy in existence after March 2000. If that be so, the aforesaid mediclaim for hospitalization and treatment after March 2000 is legally unsustainable and untenable. Thus, it can be seen that the claim is based on non-renewal of the policy. But there is nothing on record to show that it was incumbent upon the respondent/opposite party insurance Company to renew the policy. On the other hand, the materials on record would show that the respondent/opposite party Insurance Company was not interested in renewing the policy after March 2000 and that fact was communicated to the appellant/complainant. If that be so, the aforesaid mediclaim for hospitalization and treatment after March 2000 is legally unsustainable. So, the Forum below can be justified in dismissing the complaint for misjoinder of cause of action because of the fact that appellant/complainant had also claimed a total of Rs.34,592.65 under 4 set of medical bills related to the treatment during the year 1999. It is also to be noted that the Forum below has given the liberty to the appellant/complainant to file separate complaint with respect to separate cause of action. It can also be seen that all the details of the claim made in the written complaint are not given. Thus, in all respects, the Forum below can be justified in dismissing the complaint in OP.395/01 with a specific direction and a liberty to file separate complaints based on the separate cause of action. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below. More over, no prejudice will be caused to the appellant/complainant by the impugned order passed by the Forum below. So, the present appeal deserves dismissal. Hence we do so.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the Forum below is confirmed. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
s/L
