Page 68 - Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 V1.3

Suri’s - NCDRC ON LIFE INSURANCE 2017 68

the doctor after a lapse of more than 1½ years after the death of the deceased stating
that he had not treated the deceased. The petitioner even in her notice dated
19.05.2011 was silent in regard to the certificate issued by the Doctor to the opposite
party and filed the complaint only after obtaining the letter from the Doctor. In his
cross examination the Doctor has admitted that he had kept no records of the treat-
ment given at his clinic. He could not produce the OPD Register, hence, it is not clear
on what basis he had issued the certificate on 07.06.2011 that Mr Radhakond Ra-
maiah son of Somiah aged 53 years had not taken treatment at his Nursing Home.
While admittedly the certificate dated 18.06.2010 certifying that R Ramaiah had
taken treatment in his OPD was based on the lab report dated 04.05.2009 which was
conducted on his reference.
13. The petitioner/ complainant have failed to give any evidence to substantiate
her claim that her father was healthy before he died and he died a natural death due to
heart attack. She has also failed to rebut the evidence produced by the surveyor and
the investigator.
14. In view of the discussion above, I find no jurisdictional error or material ir-
regularity in the impugned order which may call for interference in exercise of pow-
ers under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is,
therefore, dismissed as also the complaint with no order as to costs.

......................
REKHA GUPTA
PRESIDING MEMBER

INDEX