KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO:604/2003

JUDGMENT DATED: 20.11.2007

PRESENT

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

Manager (L & HPF)

LIC of India, Divisional Office,: APPELLANT

Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv.G.S.Kalkura)

Vs.

Krishnakumari Amma,

Sreerangam, Eravichira East, : RESPONDENT

Sooranad Post, Kollam.

(By Adv.K.B.Sreekumar)

JUDGMENT

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an appeal preferred from the order dated:13..6..2003 passed by CDRF, Kollam in OP:655/2000. The aforesaid complaint in OP:655/00 was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellant/LIC as opposite party claiming the insurance amount of Rs.50,000/- due to the complainant as nominee of the deceased insured. The opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground of suppression of material facts regarding the serious ailment of stomach cancer suffered by the insured. There is no dispute regarding the policy issued by the 1^st opposite party in the name of the insured Gopalakrishna Pillai. The policy was taken on 8..9..1998 from the opposite party, LIC Karunagappally branch. The lower forum did not accept the contention taken by the opposite party regarding suppression of material facts with respect to the alleged disease of stomach cancer. So, the lower forum found deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in repudiating the insurance claim made by the complainant as nominee of the insured Gopalakrishna Pillai who died on 29..6..1999. Thereby the lower forum directed the opposite party to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- representing the insured amount with 9% interest from the date of the complaint. The opposite party is also directed to pay the compensation of Rs.2000/- with a cost of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the present appeal is preferred.

We heard the counsel for the appellant/opposite party and the respondent/complainant. The learned counsel for the appellant requested for allowing I.A.470/07 for accepting the documents which were produced at this appellate stage. The aforesaid petition is supported by an affidavit sworn to by the Manager, LIC of India, Divisional Office, Pattom. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the LIC could not produce these documents before the lower forum and that the lower forum did not give them the opportunity to adduce documentary evidence by examining the concerned doctor who treated the insured for the alleged illness of stomach cancer. Thus, the appellant requested for remitting the matter to the lower forum for fresh disposal. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant vehemently opposed the aforesaid request for remitting the matter to the lower forum. It is further submitted that the opposite party had ample opportunity to produce these documents and adduce oral evidence in support of the contention, but they did not adduce any evidence to substantiate the contention regarding the alleged illness of stomach cancer.

Points that arise for consideration are:-

1. The request of the appellant/opposite party to remit the matter to the lower forum can be allowed in the light of the late production of the documents at this appellate stage.

2. Is their any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the lower forum in OP:655/00.

POINTS 1 & 2

The complaint in O