STAR HEALTH AND ALLIED INSURANCE CO. LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. P.K. SASEENDRAN S/O. GOPALAN NAMBIAR, THEKKE KOTERI (H), PUTHIYARAKKARA P.O, VATAKARA, 673 111, AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are accused in C.C. No. 685 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kozhikode. Learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 418 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, "IPC") on the complaint preferred by the 1st respondent, which is produced as Annexure- I.

(2.) 1st respondent took a Star Health Insurance policy conducted by the 1st petitioner/1st accused insurance company. It was covering a period from 31.10.2008 to 30.10.200. Thereafter, it was renewed for one more year from 31.10.2009 to 30.10.2010. During subsistence of the policy, on 03.07.2010, 1st respondent accidentally hit his head on the bathroom door and sustained a head injury. He was taken to MIMS Hospital, Kozhikode. After taking CT scan, he was advised to undergo a surgery. As he was under treatment at Amrita Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre (AIMS), Cochin, he was taken to that hospital. Burr Hole Craniectomy and evacuation of subdural hematoma was performed on 14.07.2010. 1st respondent incurred an expense of Rs. 56,653.35 in connection with the treatment. When that was claimed from the 1st petitioner insurance company, they rescinded the insurance contract stating that the 1st respondent was not entitled to claim by virtue of the exclusion clause in Annexure-II policy. According to the 1st respondent/complainant, the company and its officers have committed cheating punishable under the aforementioned Sections. It is seen from the records that the 1st respondent preferred a complaint before police which was referred as a civil dispute. Annexure-XII is the final report. Thereafter, the 1st respondent appeared before the Magistrate having jurisdiction and preferred a protest complaint. Magistrate took cognizance for the aforementioned offences on the basis of his complaint

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused and the 1st respondent/complainant. Learned Public Prosecutor is also heard