State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs K.R. Ramakrishnan, Gokul, on 6 March, 2012
Daily Order
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram First Appeal No. A/12/170 (Arisen out of Order Dated 04/11/2011 in Case No. CC/10/502 of District Ernakulam) 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE ST.MARKS ROAD BANGALORE KARNATAKA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. K,RAMAKRISHNANAD GOKUL,LITTLE ROAD,AYYANTHOLE TRISSUR KERALA ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA Member PRESENT: ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO.170/2012
JUDGMENT DATED : 06.03.2012
PRESENT:
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 48/2, St. Mark's Road, Bangalore.
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, Sharanya, Hospital Road, Kochi.
Both represented by the Senior- : APPELLANTS Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office - 1, L.M.S. Compound, Thiruvananthapuram, Dr. Mohan Shankar. (By Adv. R. Jagadish Kumar) Vs 1. K.R. Ramakrishnan, Gokul, Little Road, Ayyanthole, Trichur. 2. Medi Assist India TPA Pvt. Ltd., : RESPONDENTS No. 797, Annapoorna, 10th Main, Jayanag 4th block, Bangalore - 560011. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT
The appellants are the opposite parties/insurance company in CC.502/10 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1.lakh with interest at 9% from the date of the order.
2. The dispute is with respect to the mediclaim amount claimed by the complainant for having undergone treatment at Giridhar Institute for administration of intravitreal for choroidal neovascular membrane. He has incurred a sum of Rs.1,30,300/-. The coverage is limited to Rs.1.lakh.
3. According to the opposite parties the I.P treatment was not at all required and only on account of the condition in the policy that at least 24 hours hospitalization is required he was admitted in the hospital for one day.
4. The evidence adduced consisted of PW1 and 2, Exts.A1 to A8 and B1.
5. It was brought out in evidence that the complainant is a man aged 79 years and having defective vision of left eye. He is a known diabetic for 40 years with a history of heart disease for 20 years and his vision was found deteriorated. He was advised to take injection of 0.5mg Lucentis in the left eye under local anaesthesia. Ext.A3 is the certificate issued by Dr.A.Giridhar wherein he has explained the reason for keeping him in the hospital for 24 hours. It is mentioned that he is having vision of only one eye. After administering the injection the above eye is to be bandaged. It is mentioned that monitoring for 24 hours is required. No contra evidence has been adduced by the opposite parties. In the circumstances we find that there is no patent illegality in the order of the Forum. There is no scope for admitting the appeal.
In the result the appeal is dismissed in-limine.
Office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum.
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER VL.
[HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU] PRESIDENT [ SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA] Member