NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. Vs. C.J.JIMMY
LAWS(KERCDRC)-2009-2-1
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on February 21,2009

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
C.J.Jimmy Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.V.VISWANATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER - (1.)THE above appeals are preferred from the common order dated.26th May 2004 passed by CDRF, Thrissur in OP Nos. 208,209, 290, 308, 347, 367, 400, 438, 520, 575, 578, 586, 689 and 908/2003. The complaints in the above original petitions were filed by the respondents in these appeals for restoration of Janatha Personal Accident Policies which were cancelled by the appellant/opposite party/ New India Assurance Company Ltd. by invoking condition No.5 of the said Janatha Personal Accident Policies. The complainants alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/Insurance Company in cancelling the said policies without assigning valid and sustainable reason and without complying with the stipulations contained in Condition No. 5 of the said policies. The opposite party/Insurance Company denied deficiency in service and contended that the dispute involved in the complaints is not a consumer dispute. They also justified their action in cancelling the policies by invoking condition No.5 of the said certificate Janatha Personal Accident Policies. The forum below on an appreciation of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that there was non -compliance of condition No.5 of the policy and so there was no valid cancellation of the policy. Thereby the opposite party/Insurance Company is directed to restore the policies to the original period with all consequential benefits as if there was no cancellation of the policies. The Insurance Company is also directed to pay cost of Rs.700 each to the complainants. Hence the present appeal by the opposite party/New India Assurance Company Ltd.
(2.)WHEN these appeals were taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondents/complainants. We heard the counsel for the appellant/New India Assurance Company Ltd. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of these appeals and canvassed for the position that there was cancellation of the policies issued to the respondents/complainants by virtue of Condition No.5 of the policy conditions. Thus, the appellant/Insurance Company prayed for setting aside the common impugned order passed by the Forum below.
(3.)THE points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the Janatha Personal Accident policies issued by the appellant/opposite party/New India Assurance Company Ltd. in favour of the respondents/complainants can be considered as cancelled by virtue of Condition No.5 of the policy conditions incorporated to the said Janatha Personal Accident Policies?

2. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned common order dated 26th May 2004 passed by CDRF, Thrissur in OP No. 208, 209, 290, 308, 347, 367, 400, 438,. 520, 575, 578, 586, 689 and 908/2003?

Points 1 and 2: The respondents/complainants in these appeals were holders of Personal Accident Policies issued by the appellant/New India Assurance Company Ltd. It is the case of the appellant/Insurance Company that the said Janatha Personal Accident Policies were cancelled by invoking condition No.5 of the policy conditions. It is also the case of the appellant/Insurance Company that they cancelled the said policies based on the decision taken by the Corporate Management of the Insurance Company.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.