` DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  08^th day of March, 2023

Present      :   Sri. Vinay Menon V.,  President

                  :  Smt. Vidya A., Member                        

                  :  Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                Date of Filing: 28/10/2022

                         CC/207/2022

Govindaraj.V

“Anjaly”, Opp. Old Anand Theatre,

Nedukanny, Alathur Post – 678 541                           -                       Complainant

(Party in Person)

V/s

1.      New India Assurance Company Ltd.,

          A R Mall, Court Road,

          Alathur – 678 541

2.       New India Assurance Company Ltd.,

          Divisional Office, 36/707,

          Kandamkulathy Towers, Opp. Maharaja’s  College,

         M.G.Road, Ernakulam – 682 011                                 -                       Opposite party  

         (By Adv. T.P. George)

O R D E R   I N  P R E L M I N A R Y  I S S U E

By  Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. The complainant is aggrieved by the non-return of Rs. 1,200/-, which the complainant had to incur for medical tests for availing a policy from the opposite parties. The opposite parties are legally bound to return the said amount. But even after repeated visits to the office of the opposite parties, during Covid - 19 period, the opposite parties have failed to return the said amount. The complainant had to make lengthy travels from his residence to the office of the 1^st O.P. The Insurance Ombudsman also failed to consider the plea of the complainant. Hence this Complaint.
2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version admitting the facts, but submitting their readiness and willingness to repay the said amount, upon the complainant submitting the original receipt. Amount was not paid as the complainant failed to produce the original bill. Insurance Ombudsman had already considered the matter.  There is no deficiency of service whatsoever.
3. In view of the fact that the complainant had already approached the Insurance Ombudsman and had availed an order therefrom, we took up the matter of Res-judicata as a preliminary issue for hearing.
4. Complainant has stated that he had complained to Insurance Ombudsman and the said office had not settled the complaint so far. The opposite party filed version stating that the Ombudsman had already considered the complaint and directed the O.P. to repay the amount upon the complainant producing the original of the invoice. Compensation was not allowed.
5. In support of his pleadings, the complainant had produced some documents. Off them, one is a communication dated 01/09/2022 produced as Annexure 14. Said communication is one issued by the complainant to the office of Insurance Ombudsman.  Contents of the said communication pertain to an E-mail letter no. KOC-H-49-2223-238 dated 24/08/2022 informing the Ombudsman that the complainant had received the award “proposed” by the Ombudsman. The complainant states that the Award is not acceptable to the complainant.

The complainant has not produced the Award passed by the Ombudsman.

6. In view of the contents of this document, ie. Annexure 14, produced by the complainant himself, we are unable to digest the case of the complainant that the Ombudsman has not considered the complaint of the complainant.   
7. We find that the Insurance Ombudsman had considered the complaint of the complainant and passed appropriate Award.

8.        The Insurance Ombudsman, being an Authority statutorily constituted by law to consider and adjudicate the disputes like the one herein, any traverse by this Commission into any of the facts that had been considered by the Insurance Ombudsman will be uncalled for and might lead to repugnancy or absurdity. Legality or sufficiency of the order of the Ombudsman notwithstanding, fact remains that a legally meditated order was passed by a Statutory Authority after considering the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties.  If the said award is not palatable to the complainant, the complainant has an option to file a Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. 

9.        Hence, we find that this complaint is barred by Res-judicata. Resultantly, this Complaint is dismissed

Pronounced in open court on this the 08^th    day of February, 2023.      

                                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                                              Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

        Sd/-

   Vidya.A

                       Member        

        Sd/-                                            Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.