Orissa

Rayagada

CC/89/2017

Smt. Vijayalakshmi Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Sr. Branch Manager, Andhra Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Self

03 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No.  89/ 2017.                                              Date.    13    .     3  . 2019

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       President.

Sri  Gadadhara  Sahu,                                           Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Ssmt. Vijayalakshmi  Sahu,  W/O: Sri Sarat  Kumr Sahu,  College Road, Po/Dist:Rayagada,  765 001  (Odisha)                        …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The  Sr. Branch     Manager,  Andhra Bank, Main Road,  Rayagada .

2. The Manager, Good Health TPA Services, Punjagutta, Hyderabad- 500082, Telengana

3.The Manager,United  India Insurnce Company  Ltd., Bancassurance Division,Hyderabad- 500029.                                                           .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.P No.1:- Sri  K.Ravindra  Kumar, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.P. No.2:- Exparte.

For the O.P. No.3:- Sri P.Ch.Das, Advocate, Rayagada.

JUDGEMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non payment of balance medi claim a sum of Rs.13,010/- towards policy No.0504002815P103075013  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps No.1 & 3   put in their appearance and filed written version  through their learned counsel in which  they refuting allegation made against them and defend the case.  The O.P No.1 & 3  taking one and another pleas and  sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P  No. 1 & 3  . Hence the O.P No.  1 & 3   prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Upon  Notice, the O.P No.2  neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  11 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.P No.2.  Observing lapses of around 1(one)  and half  year  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.P No.2. The action of the O.P No.2 is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P No.2  set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

Heard arguments from the learned counsels for the    O.P  No. 1 & 3   and from the   complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                               

 

                                                                FINDINGS.

From the records it reveals that, there is no dispute that the  complainant has taken  a Tailor made Group health  insurance policy having valid policy  bearing policy No. 0504002815P103075013 for the period from 9.6.2015 to 8.6.2016.

Further this forum observed prior to filing   of complaint, the complainant had issued letter to the O.Ps  on Dt. 12.07.2016 and it was duly served on the O.Ps.(Copies of the letter DT.12.7.2016  is in the file which is marked as Annexure-1 )   but they failed to furnish reply to the said letter. Hence it appears that the O.P. has been negligent and callous regarding the complaint of the complainant. So the complainant filed this C.C. case before the forum.

The O.P No.1 & 3   in their written version   taking one and another pleas to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986.  Further the O.P. No. 1  in their written  version    clearly  mentioned  that the   balance claim of the above policy also settled and an amount a sum  of Rs.12,941/- has been credited on Dt.10.10.2017 through NEFT  in the account of the complainants husband bearing A/c No.047110100012729 (copies of the  statement which  is in the file   marked as Annexure-2).

            The O.Ps  considering the exigencies   of  the matter with out any basis   in the right time properly settled the disputes  at his end to avoid further litigation by  over looking  all the deficiencies  without contesting the present case  in the sense of humanitarian point of view  by following  the principles of  natural  justice in view of justice as contemplated  the  Modos  Operandi  of the O.Ps   no doubt  worthy of credence.

            We perused the documents   filed by the complainant  as well as the O.Ps.  In our considered view   there is nothing  to disbelieve  the contents of the O.Ps regarding  their service  to  the satisfaction of the complainant  and forum does not find any reason  to hold the O.Ps.

            Accordingly the present dispute mitigated  and the  case stands disposed    and O.Ps wriggled out of  liabilities & the  case closed against  them    as  the  complainant   do not want to  proceed  with  the case further against the O.Ps  after receipt  of balance amount. Parties are left  to bear their own cost.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this         13^th.         Day of       March,   2019.

           

           

            Member.                                          Member.                           President