BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
C.C.No.26 of 2012
Between:
Smt.Ravulaparthi Rukmini Krishna
W/o.late Ravulaparthi Gopalakrishna
Aged about 46 years, Indian,
Occ:Housewife, R/o.H.No.1-4-213/6,
Plot No.6, Sri Lakshmi Enclave,
Kapra, Secunderabad-500 062. Complainant
A N D
1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
TGV Mansions, 5th & 6th floors,
Above ICICI Bank, Khairatabad,
Hyderabad-5000 004.
Now shifted to
ICICI Lombard Insurance Company Ltd.,
P.A. Claims, RC/003681
ICICI Bank Towers, Plot No.12, Financial
District, Nanakaramguda, Gachibowli
Hyderabad-500 032, AP
Rep. by its Branch Manager.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
ICICI Bank Towers,
Bandra-Kurla complex,
Mumbai-400 051.
Rep. by Managing Director.
3. ICICI Bank Homd Finance Ltd.,
ICICI Bank Towers,
RAPG Level-II, East Wing
Door No.1-11-256, Begumpet,
Hyderabad-500 016.
Now shifted to
ICICI Bank Ltd.,
ICICI Bank Finance Ltd.,
ICICI Bank Towers, Level 6,
Tower 2, North Wing, Gachibowli
Hyderabad-500 032,
Rep. by its Branch Manager. ..Opp.Parties.
Counsel for the complainant M/s V.Gourisankara Rao.
Counsel for the opp.parties: Mr.S.Shravan Kumar-O.Ps.1 & 2
M/s B.Ravindra Reddy-OP3
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI S. BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY,
TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN
Order (As per Sri T.ASHOK KUMAR Hon’ble MEMBER)
***
This complaint is filed U/s.17 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against opposite parties and for a direction to the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay accidental claim amount of Rs.29,77,767/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 15-6-2010 till the date of realization, to direct opposite party No.3 to adjust insurance claim amount payable by opposite parties 1 and 2 to the Home Loan account No.LBHYD00001421068 together with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs of Rs.25,000/- and pay interest on 29,77,767/- @ 18% p.a. from 15-6-2010 till 29-2-2010 i.e. Rs.8,93,330/-.
The brief facts of the complaint are that on 09-10-2006, opposite party No.3 sanctioned Home loan of Rs.29,77,767/- to the complainant’s husband, Ravulaparthi Gopala Krishna for the purpose of construction of a house and loan agreement was executed on 20-10-2006. The loan amount is repayable in 180 EMIs of Rs.32,457/- each and opposite party no.3 opened loan A/c . LBHYD 00001421068. As per the policy of the bank, the borrower must take insurance coverage to the sum equivalent to the sanctioned loan amount and vide letter dated 20-10-2006 informed the complainant’s husband that they had taken free Personal Accident Insurance Cover and opposite party No.1 is the branch of Opposite party No.2 and informed the Policy No.4005A/57071004/00/00.
On 14-6-2010 at 11.30 p.m the complainant’s husband after his supper went for a night walk along with his neighbours and returned with bleeding injuries on his head and informed that he accidentally fell down and received head injuries and was bleeding slightly. On the same night i.e.14/15-6-2010 at about 3.30 am when he was answering call of nature, he fell down in the bathroom and started bleeding from mouth and nose and immediately he was taken to Dr.Diddi R., family doctor of the complainant and the said doctor referred the complainant’s husband to Gandhi Hospital for immediate care and he was shifted to the said hospital but the doctors at Gandhi hospital found that he was brought dead due to head injuries.
The complainant informed the death of her husband to opposite party No.2 and the claim was registered as claim No. RC/003681 and on 25-6-2010 she informed the death of her husband to the Regional Manager (Mortgage) of ICICI Ban through e-mail and on 29-10-2010 submitted a representation to the opposite party No.3 to close the loan account by adjusting the insurance amount and submitted all the documents. On 04-12-2010 the insurance company requested the complainant to submit duly completed claim form, cause of death certificate, FIR and postmortem report and on 15-12-2010, M/s Surya claims, investigator sent a letter requesting her to send Death summary, case sheets, FIR, Panchanama and PME within 7 days or else they will recommend for closure of the file as ‘NO CLAIM’ and also reminded on 21-12-2010 to submit the documents, thereby the complainant on 23-12-2010 along with claim form submitted notarized cause of death certificate issued by Gandhi Hospital, complaint given to police authorities, copy of representation dated 28-10-2010 duly endorsed by the local Corporator, Death certificate issued by GHMC and also certificate issued by Diddi R. and medical certificate issued by Gandhi Hospital for the purpose of processing the claim and stated that she has not given police complaint for registration of FIR and no postmortem was conducted as her husband did not die in a motor accident and as the opposite parties required FIR, on 21-10-2010 she lodged a complaint with Kushaiguda Police Station. Thereafter on 18-4-2011, the opposite parties requested her to send OPD papers of Gandhi Hospital and the past history of hypertension and treatment papers to opposite party No.1 and the complainant clarified by a representation that by the time the insured was brought to Gandhi hospital, he died and the cause of death certificate and Medical certificate were already submitted to the opposite parties and the insured never had the history of hypertension or took treatment from any doctor. On 08-6-2011, opposite party No.1 once again requested the complainant to send Gandhi Hospital case papers and past treatment papers, the same were submitted earlier on 27-4-2011 and again she resubmitted the same on 29-6-2011. The complainant submitted that she was not aware of the policy issued to her husband and on 18-8-2011 under Right to Information Act, she requested the opposite parties to send a copy of the insurance policy along with terms and conditions, the date on which the premium was paid by ICICI bank and whether any claim was submitted by the Bank for adjusting the insurance amount to Home loan account and whether the claim was settled or not and there was no response from the Public Information Officer and thereby she filed an appeal before the State Information Commission on 05-11-2011. On 24-11-2011, opposite party No.2 informed her that they were constrained to close the claim for lack of information and documents related to the claim i.e. Medical records of the patient i.e. FIR/PME and again gave 8 weeks time to submit the information otherwise the claim will be closed/rejected. Since Kushaiguda Police station has not furnished FIR copy, on 7-12-2011, the complainant submitted a representation to the Director General of Police for releasing FIR and on 27-12-2011 submitted a representation to ICICI Lombard Health care to grant 4 more weeks time to obtain FIR and other documents from Kushaiguda PS but the police have not given the FIR copy. The opposite party No.3 instead of co-operating with the settlement of insurance claim, pressurized the complainant to pay the home loan amount and on 02-12-2010 got issued a legal notice stating that as on 24-11-2010 the total outstanding loan amount was Rs.30,66,651/- and on 31-12-2010 she got issued a reply notice denying the allegations. The FIR and postmortem are not mandatory for the purpose of settling the insurance claim and the medical certificate issued by Dr.Diddi, the cause of death certificate issued by Gandhi Hospital, the endorsement made by local Corporator as well as death certificate issued by Municipal Corporation establish that her husband died due to accidental fall and head injuries and hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed written statement contending that the allegations of the complaint require elaborate evidence which cannot be decided summarily under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant submitted claim form wherein she mentioned the date of accident as 15-6-2010 and narration of cause of accident as slipping step on colony road-head injury and place of accident as the road of the colony. In section II of the claim form, the date of admission was mentioned as 15-6-2010 and date of discharge as date of death on 15-6-2010 and nature of injury internal bleeding HTN and head injury and about particulars of treatment fall in the bath room. The opposite party No.2 by letter dated 04-12-2010 informed the complainant to produce the claim forum duly filled and signed, cause of death certificate notarized, FIR translated and original attested, PM report translated and notarized and Panchanama notarized and as there was no response, it sent reminder on 21-12-2010 and the complainant submitted the claim form, cause of death certificate notarized copy, FIR telugu version copy, FIR translated and original attested copy, Corporator translated and original attested copy, death certificate notarized copy, family doctor certificate notarized, Gandhi hospital doctor certificate notarized along with letter dated 23-12-2010. The opposite parties 1 and 2 appointed investigator and the investigator sent letter dated 15-12-2010 to the complainant to produce Gandhi hospital death summary and case sheets, FIR, Panchanama and PME and the investigator after conducting detailed investigation submitted his report dated 20-12-2010 stating that the insured died due to internal bleeding due to HTN and the proximity cause is not the fall. The opposite parties 1 and 2 by letter dated 18-4-2011 asked the complainant to submit the past history of hypertension and treatment papers and also IP records and FIR/MLC and when there was no response, they were forced to send reminders dated 08-6-2011, 14-9-2011, 10-9-2011 and 29-10-20911 and the complainant did not submit the same and hence opposite party No.2 had no other option but closed the claim and informed by letter dated 24-10-2011 to get back to them in 8 weeks failing which the claim will be closed. On receipt of the said letter, the complainant sought 4 weeks time through letter dated 27-12-2011 but the complainant did not submit the same and therefore they had to obtain information under RTI Act from Gandhi hospital through letter dated 27-12-2010 and after receipt of information, found that the claim lodged by the complainant is fraudulent and invoking Section 8 of the policy, they repudiated the claim and informed the complainant through letter dated 18-1-2012. The opposite parties 1 and 2 further sought clarification from Dr.Anand Rao and he clarified through letter dated 27-2-2012 that he did not physically examine the patient on 15-6-2010 and that the family members of Gopala Krishna approached him in the month of August, 2010 with Burial Ground certificate and informed him to give form IV A and as per their request he issued form IV A to the relatives to get the death certificate from Municipal Corporation and as per Burial ground certificate, the place of death is mentioned as home and he mentioned the cause of death as Head injury in form IV A due to the force and request of relatives of the patient but the cause of death would be natural death. The opposite parties 1 and 2 stated that FIR and PME report are mandatory under the conditions of the policy and the complainant tried to mislead the death of her husband as accidental death by filing medical certificate issued by Dr.Diddi and the endorsement made by local Corporator and the contract between the insurer and insured is in accordance with mandatory limitations and as per the terms and also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2003(IV) SLT 296 in Vijay Sayal and another vs. State of Punjab and others in which it was held that if the death is not an accidental death but natural, it is not covered under the policy and that there is no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
The opposite party No.3 filed written version resisting the complaint and contended that this Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It admitted that it sanctioned Home loan of Rs.29,77,767/- to the complainant’s husband, Ravulaparthi Gopala Krishna for the purpose of construction of a house and loan agreement was executed on 20-10-2006 vide loan A/c . LBHYD 00001421068. The loan amount is repayable in 180 EMIs of Rs.32,457/- each. The borrower offered the property in plot No.6, Sy.No.552 part, 553, 554 part, Lakshmi Enclave, Kapra MCH, Keesara Mandal, R.R.district as security and took personal accident insurance coverage from opposite parties 1 and 2 and it has nothing to do with the policy and in case of death of the insured, the legal heirs have to claim the insurance claim by submitting the documents and if the insurance company release the claim amount., it will adjust the same towards the outstanding dues payable by the insured. The complainant on 15-6-2010 brought to its notice that the borrower i.e. her husband collapsed on 15-6-2010 as he slipped in bathroom in late hours of June, 14,2010 and was taken to the hospital while he was bleeding through nose and breathing with difficulty and on reaching the hospital doctors declared that he was dead and requested not to pressurize for EMI’s in the intermittent period. After receiving the said information, it requested the complainant to process her claim and extended its support to the complainant and stated that it has no knowledge of the alleged accidental fall of the borrower during his night walk on 14-6-2010 and the injuries met by him and the treatment given. Opposite party No.3 stated that it has nothing to do with the insurance policy as the policy is between the insured and the insurer and if the insurance company pays the amount, it adjusts the amount to the outstanding dues payable by the borrower under the home loan account and as per the terms of the loan agreement, the due instalments are to be served to the borrower and co-borrower on the respective dates and in the event the due instalments are not paid, it has every right to demand for the outstanding dues from the borrower. It denied that it received any letter dated 18-8-2011 from the complainant under RTI Act and stated that it is a Private Bank and private sector banks are not governed by the provisions of RTI Act and further it had provided the copies of loan documents to the borrower and co-borrower and extended its support for processing the insurance claim. It has nothing to do with the closure of the claim by opposite parties 1 and 2 and it has every right to demand the instalments due and every right to take action against the borrowers, if they default in payment of the loan under the loan account as per law and submitted that there is no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant filed her affidavit and the affidavit of Dr.Diddi as P.W.2 and also third party affidavit of Mr.B.Srinivas who is the tenant and Mr.Tadinada Manga Raju, family friend and relied on Exs.A1 to A10. The Legal Manager of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., filed his affidavit as R.W.2, Mr.Pradeep Jadhav, Manager, ICLM as RW 3 and affidavit of Dr.Anand Rao as R.W.4 and relied on Exs.B2 to B14 and the Manager (Legal) of OP 3 filed his affidavit and relied on Ex.B1.
Heard the counsel on both sides and counsel for OP No.3 also filed written arguments.
Now the point for consideration is:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite parties and if the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed in the complaint?
The facts not in dispute are that the opposite party No.3 sanctioned Home loan of Rs.29,77,767/- to the complainant’s husband, Ravulaparthi Gopala Krishna for the purpose of construction of a house and loan agreement was executed on 20-10-2006 vide Ex.A3. The loan amount is repayable in 180 EMIs of Rs.32,457/- each and opposite party no.3 opened loan A/c . LBHYD 00001421068 and the borrower took insurance coverage to the sum equivalent to the sanctioned loan amount and vide letter dated 20-10-2006 and also informed the complainant’s husband that they had taken free Personal Accident Insurance Cover.
The case of the complainant is that her husband on 14-6-2010 at about 11.30 p.m. had accidentally fell down and received head injuries and on the same night at about 3.30 am when he was answering call of nature, he fell down in the bathroom and started bleeding from mouth and nose, immediately he was taken to Dr.Diddi R., family doctor of the complainant and the said doctor referred the complainant’s husband to Gandhi Hospital for immediate care and he was shifted to the said hospital but the doctors at Gandhi hospital found that he was brought dead due to head injuries.
The complainant informed the death of her husband to opposite party No.2 and the Regional Manager (Mortgage) of ICICI Ban through e-mail and vide Ex.A4 letter on 29-10-2010 to the opposite party No.3 to close the loan account by adjusting the insurance amount and submitted all the documents and on 04-12-2010 and 21-12-2010 vide Ex.A5 but the insurance company requested the complainant to submit duly completed claim form, cause of death certificate, FIR and postmortem report and the complainant on 23-12-2010 vide Ex.A6 along with claim form submitted notarized cause of death certificate issued by Gandhi Hospital, complaint given to police authorities, copy of representation dated 28-10-2010 duly endorsed by the local Corporator, Death certificate issued by GHMC and also certificate issued by Diddi R. and medical certificate issued by Gandhi Hospital for the purpose of processing the claim and stated that she has not given police complaint and registered FIR immediately, no postmortem was conducted as her husband did not die in a motor accident and as the opposite parties required FIR, on 21-10-2010 she lodged a complaint with Kushaiguda Police Station but could not get the same and stated that the FIR and postmortem are not mandatory for the purpose of settling the insurance claim and the medical certificate issued by Dr.Diddi, the cause of death certificate issued by Gandhi Hospital, the endorsement made by local Corporator as well as death certificate issued by Municipal Corporation would establish that her husband died due to accidental fall and head injuries and prayed for closing the loan account by adjusting the insurance amount.
Thereafter exchange of letters took place between the opposite parties and complainant vide Ex.A8 letters dated 18-4-2011, 27-4-2011, 8-6-2011, 29-6-2011 requesting the complainant to furnish OPD consultation papers of Gandhi hospital and Past history of hypertension and treatment papers and as the complainant had not sent the same, by letter dated 24-10-2011 the opposite party intimated that it was constrained to close the claim for which the complainant vide letter dated 27-12-2011 requested time to furnish FIR. The opposite party No.3 bank vide Ex.A9 02-12-2010 issued notice to the complainant demanding payment of the loan amount and the complainant vide Ex.A10 issued replies on 20-12-2010 and 31-12-2010 requesting to recall the notice and not to take action.
It is the case of the opposite parties 1 and 2 that the complainant submitted claim form wherein she mentioned the date of accident as 15-6-2010 and narration of cause of accident as slipping step on colony road-head injury and failed to produce Gandhi hospital death summary and case sheets, FIR, Panchanama and PME and their investigator after conducting detailed investigation submitted his report dated 20-12-2010 vide Ex.B8 stating that the insured died due to internal bleeding due to HTN and the proximity cause is not the fall. The opposite parties 1 and 2 by letter dated 18-4-2011,Ex.B9, asked the complainant to submit the past history of hypertension and treatment papers and also IP records and FIR/MLC and when there was no response, they were forced to send reminders dated 08-6-2011, 14-9-2011, 10-9-2011 and 29-10-20911 and the complainant did not submitted the same and hence opposite party No.2 had no other option but closed the claim as the case of the complainant is fraudulent and invoking Section 8 of the policy, they repudiated the claim and informed the complainant through letter dated 18-1-2012 vide Ex.B13.
It is the case of opposite party No.3 that it has nothing to do with the policy and in case of death of the insured, the legal heirs have to claim the insurance claim by submitting the documents and if the insurance company release the claim amount, it will adjust the same towards the outstanding dues payable by the insured. As per the terms of the loan agreement, the due instalments are to be served to the borrower and co-borrower on the respective dates and in the event the due instalments are not paid and has every right to demand for the outstanding dues from the borrower.
We observe from the record that the facts of the case are not complicated so as to relegate the parties to the civil court for redressal. The complainant filed the affidavits of Mr.B.Srinivas, neighbour/tenant and T.Manga Raju family friend in support of her contention with regard to accidental fall of her husband on the night of 14-6-2010 when he went to night walk. The substance of their evidence is that as usual in the night of 14-6-2010 after taking dinner they along with the deceased went for a night walk and accidentally Mr.Gopala Krishna the husband of the complainant fell down and received injuries with slight bleeding and that during the relevant time the road was under repairs and therefore the deceased slipped and fell down and after such accidental fall they have taken the deceased to his house and at that time he was conscious and coherent. It is also deposed by them that they learnt in the night the deceased slipped in the bathroom and in the next morning he was taken to family doctor of the deceased and from there to Gandhi hospital where he was found brought dead. Dr.Diddi also deposed that on 15-6-2010 at about 6.00 a.m. the deceased was brought to his clinic informing that the patient fell down in the bathroom accidentally and became unconscious and that since his clinic was not equipped suitably to treat such a patient, a letter of reference was given.
One of the annexures to Ex.A4 is medical certificate of cause of death and in the said certificate, the immediate cause of death is shown as ‘Head Injury’ and manner of death is indicated as ‘Accident’ and the said certificate was issued by Gandhi hospital. In such circumstances, the opposite parties made correspondence with Gandhi Hospital and obtained information that it was given by Dr.M.Ananda Rao and relied on Ex.B14 letter issued by the said doctor in the capacity of CMO Gandhi Hospital Secunderabad. A perusal of the said letter discloses that the family members of the deceased approached him in the month of August, 2010 with a burial ground certificate, informed him to issue form IV A certificate and accordingly he issued such a certificate to the relatives of the patient to get death certificate from Municipal Corporation and clarified that it will not be valid for any claim purpose and that the place of death of the patient was mentioned as ‘home’ in the burial ground certificate and the same was informed to him and that he did not physically examine the patient on 15-6-2010 so he is not aware of the actual cause of death. He further mentioned in it that post mortem was not done on the deceased and that he mentioned the cause of death as ‘Head Injury’ on form IV A certificate due to the force and request of the patient relatives but the actual cause of death of the patient would be natural death and also gave an affidavit in support of opposite parties 1 and 2 stating that such a letter was issued by him and that contents of such letter are true.
The said doctor, Mr.Ananda Rao was not cross –examined by the complainant to impeach the credit of his evidence and thus evidence remained unchallenged. Therefore necessarily, Ex.B14 has to be relied upon ignoring Form IV A accident which is basis for the complainant to claim the benefit under the insurance policy. Even in the affidavit of Dr.Diddi or the prescription issued by him there is no mention of bleeding from the alleged head injury, mouth and nose and as such it is difficult to believe the version of the complainant and also the said B.Srinivas and Manga raju and therefore the affidavits of the complainant, B.Srinivas and T.Manga Raju and Dr.Diddi are not helpful for the complainant. It appears that the said Srinivas and Manga Raju being tenant and friend of the deceased they were pressed into service to depose on behalf of the complainant to support her case. Ex.B8, investigation report dated 20-12-2010, also discloses that the insured did not die of accident. It also appears that the Corporator also obliged the complainant by making endorsement on the medical certificate.
That apart, the complainant did not file copy of FIR, inquest Panchanama to show that the apparent cause of death is on account of accident so also Post mortem examination report showing the cause of death as ‘Head injury’ said to have been received by the deceased due to accidental fall. The complainant contended that even though a complaint was lodged with Kushaiguda Police Station on 21-6-2010, they refused to receive the complaint on the ground that last rites were already conducted but she did not submit any copy of such complaint. If the police refuses to receive such a complaint, it was her duty to send it by registered post but did not do so. She alleged to have sent a representation dated 07-12-2011 to Inspector General of Police marking copy thereof the said C.I. The postal receipts and acknowledgements filed by the complainant shows that they are dated 21-10-2010 and she failed to connect the said acknowledgements to the alleged letter dated 7-12-2011, therefore no substance is found in the contention of the complainant in this regard. Hence we see no substance in the case of the complainant to hold that the deceased died on account of accidental fall and to direct the opposite parties to pay the insurance amount. When complainant is not entitled for the insurance amount, the question of directing opposite parties to pay the insurance amount to the credit of loan obtained from opposite party No.3 does not arise. Thus we see no merit in the complaint and is liable to be dismissed deciding the point against the complainant.
In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.
MEMBER.
MEMBER.
MEMBER.
Dt.22-1-2014.
//APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE//
Witnesses examined for
For the complainants: For the Opp.parties
Affidavit evidence of the Affidavit evidence of Mr.Sharath
complainant filed. Babu, Legal Manager of ICICI
Affidavit of Dr.Diddi R. filed Loombard Gen.Ins.Co. Ltd., as
as P.W.2. R.W.2.
Affidavit of Mr.Tadinada Affidavit evidence of MrPradeep
Manga Raju filed. Jadhav, Manager, ICLM as RW 3
Affidavit of Mr.B.Srinivas Affidavit of Dr.Ananda Rao
Filed. as RW 4
Affidavit evidence of Anil Vydya
Manager (Legal) of OP3 filed.
Exhibits marked for the complainants:
Ex.A1- Offer letter dated 09-10-2006 vide application No.777-600116.
Ex.A2-Letter dated 20-10-2006 from opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A3 Facility agreement.
Ex.A4-Letter dated 29-10-2006 from the complainant to opposite party.
Ex.A5-Letter of reminder from opposite party to complainant.
Ex.A6-Reply sent by the complainant.
Ex.A7-Postal receipts and acknowledgements.
Ex.A8-Correspondence between the complainant and Ops.
Ex.A9-Legal notice from opposite party.
Ex.A10-Reply to legal notice from the complainant.
Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1-Copy of Power of attorney.
Ex.B2-Attested copy of policy.
Ex.B3-Attested copy of claim form.
Ex.B4-Attested copy of letter dt04-12-2010.
Ex.B5-Attested copy of reminder letter dated 21-12-2010.
Ex.B6-Attested copy of letter dated 23-12-10 from complainant.
Ex.B7-Attested copy of letter dated 15-12-2010 from Investigator to complainant.
Ex.B8-Attested copy of Investigation report.
Ex.B9-Attested copy of letter dated 18-4-2011.
Ex.B10-Attested copy of letter dated 24-10-2011.
Ex.B11-Attested copy of letter dated 27-12-2011.
Ex.B12-Attested copy of letter dated 27-12-2011.
Ex.B13-Attested copy of repudiation letter dated 18-1-2012
Ex.B14-Attested copy of letter dated 27-2-2012 from Dr.Ananada Rao.
MEMBER.
MEMBER.
MEMBER.
JM Dt.22-1-2014.
