M.THANIKACHALAM, J. - (1.) The opposite party, unable to succeed in resisting the case of the consumer complaint, filed by the complainant, suffered an order in the hands of the District Forum in on 9.4.2009, wherein directions were issued to pay the sums assured under two policies, with interest alongwith damage, and cost, challenges the same in this appeal.
(2.) Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal, unavoidably: Thiru. Ramachandran, the husband of the complainant had taken two policies, bearing policy Nos.762645820, 761398491, with the opposite party w.e.f. 28.10.2001 and 28.3.2004 respectively, for the total sum assured Rs.5,50,000/-. The assured Ramachandran passed away on 2.8.2003 at 12 noon, due to chest pain, and the same was reported by the complainant, to the opposite party, claiming the sum assured under the policies. There was no response, despite legal notice not settled, thereby they have committed deficiency in service, in not settling the claim, and therefore the complainant is constrained to file a case, for the recovery of the sum assured under the policies, in addition to a sum of Rs.50000/-, as damages towards mental agony.
(3.) The opposite party/ appellant, not challenging the policies, resisted the case, interalia contending, that the claim was made within two years from the date of revival of the policy, warranting investigation, which revealed the actual date of death of the assured was only 26.7.2003, which was suppressed, giving false date, as of Mr. Ramachandran died on 2.8.2003, which can be proved by the absence of his son, as well as the attendance of his son, in the school, for which register is maintained, that the complainant suppressing all the facts, preparing false documents, since claimed the amount, on the basis of the lapsed policies, they were repudiated, not to be brought under deficiency in service, praying for the dismissal of the complaint.;