KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 269/2020

JUDGMENT DATED: 18.11.2024

(Against the Order in C.C. 118/2019 of DCDRC, Kasaragod)

PRESENT:

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

The Manager, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Kasaragod New Bus Stand, Kasaragod.

            (By Adv. Sachin Daga & Adv. Suja Madhav)

                                  Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Geetha Thomas, W/o Thomas Joseph, Kurialpuzha House, Badiadka, Perdala P.O., Kasaragod Taluk, Kasaragod District.

2. Jithin Thomas Joseph, S/o Thomas Joseph, Kurialpuzha House, Badiadka, Perdala P.O., Kasaragod Taluk, Kasaragod District.

3. Joyal Thomas, S/o Thomas Joseph, Kurialpuzha House, Badiadka, Perdala P.O., Kasaragod Taluk, Kasaragod District.

JUDGMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in C.C. No. 118/2019 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kasaragod (District Commission for short).  The respondents 1 to 3 are the complainants. On 13.12.2019  the complaint was allowed by the District Commission and directed the opposite party to disburse the entire policy amount of Rs. 55,680/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till payment and to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as costs. 

2.  The complainants had approached the District Commission by resorting to Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service.  The complainant is the wife of Thomas Joseph who had subscribed a life insurance policy with the opposite party from 06.01.2011.  The policy bears cash flow plan for ten years on the assured sum of Rs. 55,680/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty only).  Sri. Thomas Joseph had remitted the premium and hence he is entitled to get the entire assured sum and other benefits.  On 05.01.2019 Sri. Thomas Joseph died on account of a fall from an Aracanut tree.  After his demise, the complainants, the legal heirs of the deceased had approached the opposite party with a request to furnish the details of the aforesaid policy.  But the opposite party was reluctant to disclose or disburse the amount and insisted for production of AB & C claim duly signed by attending doctor.  The complainant had expressed their inability to find out such a doctor.  They had caused issuance of a lawyer notice demanding the sum assured to which there was no reply.  Hence the complaint was filed. 

3.  On admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party.  Though notice was served on the opposite party, the opposite party did not turn up and hence the opposite party was set exparte.

4.  The 1^st complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Exhibits A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the complainants.  Based upon the evidence of the complainants, the impugned order was passed by the District Commission. 

5.  The appellant would assail the orde