DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                                  .…. PRESIDENT
                 THIRU.J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A.,B.L.,                                                                            .....MEMBER-I
                 THIRU P.MURUGAN, M.Com., ICWA(Inter)., B.L.,                                                 ….. MEMBER-II

CC. No.88/2022
THIS WEDNESDAY, THE 26th DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

Mr.V.Sambandan, S/o.Veerapathiran,
No.78/3, New No.64,
Muthu Amman Koil Street,
Aynanvaram, (Near Gopikrishnan Theater),
Chennai -600 023.                                                                                ....Complainant.
                                                                                     //Vs//
1.The New India Assurance Company Limited,
    Rep. by its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory,
    Head Office, New India Assurance Building,
    No.87, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001.

2.The New India Assurance Company Limited,
    Rep. by its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory,
    Branch office No.10990, A.R. Complex, 
    Poonamalle High Road,
    Pariamet,  Chennai -600 084.                                                …….Opposite parties.
 
Counsel for the complainant                            :            Mr.R.Pandiyan, Advocate,
Counsel for the opposite parties                     :            M/s.S.Radhadevi, Advocate. 

ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

               The complaint was filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties  in not reimbursing the medical expenses along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.66357/- for medical expenses incurred by the complainant after deducting Rs.13,000/- in total bill amount of Rs.73957/- and to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties along with cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party present. No representation for the complainant. Information given and notice of transfer served on complainant. Inspite of the same the complainant failed to appear and file written arguments and adduce oral arguments. Sufficient opportunities provided.  The complainant was called twice but no representation.    Hence, this commission is of the view that there is no purpose in keeping the complaint on file. Hence this complaint is dismissed for non prosecution.  No cost.
This order was pronounced by us in the open Commission on this 26th October 2022. 

Sd/-                                                      Sd/-                                                         Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                    MEMBER-I                                             PRESIDENT