SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

K.SAMPATH, GUNASEKARAN
Chief postmaster – Appellant
Versus
Rajammal – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants:Mr. M.T. Arunan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. S. Devika and Mr. T. Mohan, Advocates.

ORDER

Thiru Justice K. Sampath, President—The opposite parties in C.O.P. No. 93/99 on the file of the District Forum, Cuddalore are the appellants in the appeal.

2. The case of the first complainant was as follows: She is the mother of one Arunachalam (since deceased). He had taken an insurance policy for Rs. 50,000 and the first complainant was the nominee. The premium had been paid and the policy was subsisting on the date of death of Arunachalam on 12.2.1998. She immediately informed the appellants/opposite parties and made a claim. The claim application was forwarded by the Sub-Divisional Inspector (Postal), Sankarapuram to the third opposite party on 30.5.1998. Vide letter dated 9.11.1998, the third appellant requested the first complainant for particulars of treatment given to Arunachalam for the preceding three years and the cause of his death. The 1st complainant immediately sent a copy of the medical certificate marked as Ex. A 19 to the appellants. Between April, 1998 and January, 1999, several reminders, Exs. A11, A14, A16 and A21 were sent to the appellants to expeditiously process the claim. Under the original of Ex. A23, dated 24.2.1999, they sent a legal notice which w













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top