Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/240/2015

Jayadeesan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Medical Officer - Opp.Party(s)

T. Kumaravijay

27 Apr 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

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

                                     Thiru.R.VENKATESA PERUMAL                     ::      MEMBER

 

 FA. No. 240/2015

(Against the order in C.C. No. 16/2012, dated 18.5.2015, on the file of

District Consumer Forum, Chennai(North)

 

                                                       DATED THIS THE 27^TH  DAY OF APRIL 2022

 

G.Jagadeesan,

S/o, Gurusamy Nadar,

No.6, Kummalamman koil street,

Tondiarpet,

Chennai 600 081                                                               ..Appellant/complainant

                                      Vs

1. The Medical Officer,

Good Health Plan Limited,

Old No.19, New No.5, ‘C’ Block,

9^th street, Anna Nagar (East),

Chennai - 600 102

 

2.The Medical Officer,

Good Health Plan Limited,

Plot No.49, Nagarjuna Hills,

Panjagutta,

Hydrabad – 82

 

3. M/s United India Insurance Company,

No.24, Whites Road,

Royapetta, Chennai 600 014                           ..Respondents/opposite parties

 

Counsel for the Appellant/complainant           : M/s T.Kumaravijayan

Counsel for the Respondents/ops 1 and 2       : M/s M.B.Gopalan

3^rd  Respondent                                            : Served called absent

 

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

 

                                                                                 Docket order

          No representation for the appellant. Respondents 1 and 2 present. This appeal is posted today for appearance of appellant and for filing written arguments of appellant and for arguments in list or for dismissal. When the matter was called at 11.00 A.M, the appellant was not present, hence passed over and called again at 12.30 noon, then also the appellant has not appeared. Hence we are of the view that keeping the appeal pending is of no use as the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the case. The appeal is dismissed for default. No order as to cost.

  Sd/-                                                                                                            Sd/-

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                 R.SUBBIAH

MEMBER                                                                                                PRESIDENT