State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., vs Raju Kolasery, on 23 April, 2010
Daily Order
First Appeal No. A/10/111
(Arisen out of order dated 18/06/2009 in Case No. CC 09/06 of District Kannur)
1. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
....Appellant
Versus
1. Raju Kolassery
....Respondent
BEFORE :
HONORABLE JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU , PRESIDENT PRESENT:
None for the Appellant None for the Respondent *JUDGEMENT/ORDER KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO: 111/2010 JUDGMENT DATED:23..04..2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office No:II, Kannur, R/by its Divisional Manager, : APPELLANT Divisional Office-1, TVPM.
(By Adv:Varkala.B.Ravikumar) Vs.
1. Raju Kolasery, Kolasery house, Chettiyamparambu, Kelakam.
2. Kshema, Kolassery house, : RESPONDENTS Chettiyamparambu, Kelakam.
3. TTK Health Care services Pvt. Ltd., 1400, Mareena buildings, M.G.Road, Cochin.
JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/insurance company in CC:9/2006 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.9070/- and Rs.2000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost. The case of the complainant is that she underwent appendectomy by laparoscopic surgery and was inpatient for 5 days, Lourde hospital, Kochi. The claim was repudiated on the ground that she underwent along with the above surgery, another surgery for Endometriosis. It is the contention of the opposite party/appellant that treatment for infertility is not covered and Endometriosis is connected with infertility.
2. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1, Exts.A1 to A6 and B1 to B6.
3. We find that the total amount claimed is Rs.18141/-. The fact that she underwent appendectomy by laparoscopic surgery is not disputed. The fact that she underwent treatment for Endometriosis during the above surgery is the reason for reducing the amount of expenses by half at the instance of the claim administrators/2nd opposite party of the 1st opposite party.
4. We find it is absurd on the part of the appellant to reduce the claim by half on the ground that during the same surgical process the complainant underwent another treatment also. The total amount claimed for the hospitalization and surgery is only Rs.18141/-. We find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal. The appeal is dismissed in-limine.
The office will forward the copy of this order to the Forum urgently.
JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER VL.
Pronounced Dated the 23 April 2010 [HONORABLE JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU] PRESIDENT