HYDERABAD.

FA.No.905/2010 against C.C.No.119/2009

Between

1. Branch Manager,

2. General Manager,

   rd   New Delhi.                                    

C.Ramalakhumma W/o.late C.Mallela Bal

Reddy, residing at 2/88, Torrivemula,

Mylavaram, Kadapa District.                                                                                                                         

Counsel for the Appellants           

Counsel for the Respondent         

QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

         SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.

TWO THOUSAND TWELVE

Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President)

***

During the course of hearing, the appellant filed an application to receive original form ‘C’ i.e. original of Ex.B5 to show that it did not tamper the document and on the other hand the complainant had tampered and filed Ex.A2.         

       ‘The date of first consultation as per Ex.A2 was 16-12-2008 but it was mentioned

In order to demonstrate that the District Forum has erroneously upheld Ex.A2, filed  

A perusal of the certificate would undoubtedly show that the complainant had tampered the document in order        When the very document filed by the complainant discloses pre-existing ailment, it can be said that this was manipulated in order to claim the amount.       

We do not intend to reiterate that the contract of insurance is        

Sd/-PRESIDENT

Sd/-MEMBER.

JM