Kerala

Trissur

CC/08/854

Annamma Thomas - Complainant(s)

Versus

United india Insurance Company Ltd rep by Branch Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.K.Bindu

26 Sep 2009

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/854

Annamma Thomas
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

United india Insurance Company Ltd rep by Branch Manager
Medsave Health Care Ltd rep by Managing Director
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Padmini Sudheesh 2. Rajani P.S. 3. Sasidharan M.S

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Annamma Thomas

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. United india Insurance Company Ltd rep by Branch Manager 2. Medsave Health Care Ltd rep by Managing Director

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Adv.K.Bindu

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

 
By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
 
            The complainant’s case is as follows: the complainant is a policyholder of the respondents having No.100606/48/07/20/00000405. The complainant had taken the policy as per the rules of the Insurance Company and after check-ups. The complainant renewed the policy from 2000 to 2008. Meanwhile the complainant got admitted in Raji Nursing home and treated from 15.10.2007 to 17.10.2007. The medical expenses was for Rs.2315.16. When the complainant applied for the claim with all relevant documents, the first respondent repudiated the claim by stating that she failed to give reply to some matters. But the respondent Company never demanded such things.   The Insurance Company demanded some documents from the insured person and he sent reply to that. The complainant was not suffering from any disease while taking the policy. The policy is renewed continuously and the first respondent allowed the claim for the first time and this is the second claim. The complainant sent a lawyer notice for getting the claim and also demanded for the claim directly. The repudiation of the claim is an unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint.
            2. The respondents are called absent and set exparte.
 
            3. To prove the case of the complainant she filed affidavit and produced 7 documents, which are marked as Exts. P1 to P7. 
 
            4. According to the complainant, she had undergone a treatment within the policy period and entitled for getting the medical expenses. The complainant renewed the policy continuously from 2000 to 2008. The present treatment was from 15.10.2007 to 17.10.2007, which is within the policy period and is entitled for the claim amount. There is no counter evidence to the evidence of complainant. .
 
            5. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay Rs.2315.16 (Rupees two thousand three hundred fifteen and paise sixteen only) as the treatment expenses and Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as compensation with Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) as costs to the complainant within one month.
 

             Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 26th day of September 2009.




......................Padmini Sudheesh
......................Rajani P.S.
......................Sasidharan M.S