BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 29th FEBRUARY 2016
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.332/2015
(Admitted on 19.09.2015)
Between:
Umeshchandra,
S/o. Venkappa Gowda,
Aged about 43 years,
R/at Shivganga House,
Bellippady Village,
Kodimbady,
Puttur Taluk. D.K. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for Complainant: Sri. Sanjay D)
VERSUS
Post Mager (Grade III)
Puttur head post office,
Puttur-01.
Post Master,
Uppinangady Post Office,
Near Bus stand, Uppinangady,
Puttur Tq, D.K. ……OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 Ex-parte)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
I. 1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service as against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant’s wife Smt. Vedavathi had taken two Rural Postal Life Insurance Santhosh (Endowment Assurance) Policy No. 397883 and 533096 from the 1st Opposite Party. The complainant’s wife died on 18.06.2014 due to heart Attack and has made claim under above two polices. Out of the above two policies Opposite Party No. 1 has settled the policy No. 397883 for Rs. 1,35,000/-. The policy No. 533096 is for Rs. 2,00,000/- and it was taken on 31.03.2012 and the policy will nature on 18.02.2030. The complainant’s wife has been paying premium of Rs. 2,150/- per month to Opposite Party No. 2 from 31.03.2012 till 18.06.2014. It is submitted that Opposite Party No. 1 has furnished only one page of the policy to the complainant’s wife. As per the policy certificate the claim is payable on the date of last payment or prior death of the life assured whichever earlier.
When the matter stood thus, the complainant has filed claim from on 17.07.2014 for payment of claim. Thereafter nothing was heard from Opposite Party No. 1 with regarding the claim. Hence the complainant has filed RTI application dated 01.06.2015 to Opposite Party No. 1 to furnish the related documents of the policy and also to furnish the order regarding the claim. Thereafter the complainant has received the related documents of the policy and rejection letter dated 02.06.2015 stating that the claim has been rejected for the reason “Suppression of facts”. It is submitted that complainant’s wife died due to Heart Attack and it is not a medical condition that could be revealed at the time of taking the policy. Further there was no such medical condition that could have indicated Heart Attack. Hence there was no suppression of facts by the complainant’s wife. It is submitted that, Opposite Party No. 1 has not sent rejection letter to the complainant till the RTI application was filed. It is submitted that Opposite Party No. 1 has not served the terms and conditions of the policy to the complainant’s wife at the time of issuing the policy certificate. Opposite Parties above act amounts to deficiency of service. Hence the complainant got issued regd. Lawyers notices dated 20.07.l2015 to the Opposite Parties and the notices was served on the Opposite Party No. 2 on 21.07.2015 and Opposite Party No. 1 issued false reply dated 23.07.2015.
It is stated that, non-settling the claim to the complainant amounts to deficiency of service by the Opposite parties. Hence the complainant filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- including 12% interest there on till the date of payment along with compensation and cost of the proceedings.
II. 1. Version notice served to the opposite parties by R.P.A.D receiving version notice neither appeared nor contested the case before this FORA. Hence we have proceeded ex-parte as against the opposite parties.
III. 1. In support of the complaint, Sri Umeshchandra (CW1) the Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced Ex. C1 to C8. Opposite Parties ex-parte.
In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:-
Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service?
If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Affirmative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. 1. POINTS NO. (i) TO (iii):
The complainant in order to substantiate the averments made in the complaint filed affidavit supported by documents i.e. Ex C-1 to C-8. On perusal of the documents i.e. Ex C1 is the copy of policy, Ex C-2 is the claim form, Ex C-3 is the death certificate, Ex C-4 is the repudiation letter. However on perusal of repudiation letter it reveals that, the opposite party repudiated claim on the ground suppression of facts basing on leave details availed by them pertaining to the complainant. On scrutiny of leave details we observed that the complainant’s wife availed earned leave on medical ground. But there is no explanation or report produced by the opposite party to show that the deceased Vedavathi had ailments at the time of obtaining the policy and same has been suppressed by her.
Apart from the above we also observed that there is no material evidence to convince that deceased Vedavathi undergone medical treatment in any hospital. In the absence of any convincing evidence we are unable to hold that Vedavathi had certain ailments in the same has been suppressed by her. The opposite party ought to have summed the documents from the concerned hospitals to show that she had a pre-existing disease at the time of obtaining policy.
Apart from the above the Opposite Parties in-spit of receiving version notice not appeared nor contested the case till this date. The entire material evidence placed before this Fora is not contradicted nor controverted by the Opposite Parties. It shows their sheer negligence and the unrebutted evidence requires no further proof. The documents produced by the complainant shows that complainant’s wife Vedavathi obtained the policy on 31.03.2012 bearing No: 533096 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and policy premature on 18.02.2013 (as per . Ex C-1) The insured Vedavathi expired on 18.06.2014 (As per Ex C-3) since the insured died due to heart attack the opposite parties liable to pay insured sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased. The complaint is filed by her husband is entitled for the insured sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- if there is no other legal heirs. Non-settling the claim till this date amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.
In view of the above said reasons, we hold that, the Opposite Parties jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of repudiation till the date of payment. Further pay Rs. 3,000/- as litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
In the present case, interest considered by this Forum itself is compensation and therefore, no separate amount for compensation is awarded.
In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The Opposite Parties i.e. Rural postal life insurance represented by its Post Master jointly and severally shall pay Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of repudiation till the date of payment and also pay Rs. 3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as costs of litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 7 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of FEBRUARY 2016).
PRESIDENT MEMBER
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY) (SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Umeshchandra – Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1: 31.03.2012: True copy of the policy.
Ex C2: 17.07.2014: True copy of the claim form.
Ex C3: 18.06.2014: True copy of the Death Certificate.
Ex C4: 02.06.2015: True copy of the Repudiation letter.
Ex C5: 31.03.2012: True copy of the Pass book.
Ex C6: 20.07.2015: O/c of the regd lawyer’s notices.
Ex C7: 23.07.2015: Reply of the Opposite Party No. 1.
Ex C8: 21.07.2015: Postal Acknowledgment of Opposite Party No.2.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Nil
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Nil
Dated:29-02-2016 PRESIDENT
14.02.2016. Call on 12.02.2016.
12.02.2016. Call on 29.02.2016.
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. the Opposite Parties i.e. Rural postal life insurance represented by its Post Master jointly and severally shall pay Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest 12% Per annum from the date of repudiation till the date of payment and also pay off Rs. 3000/- (Rupees three thousand only). Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of FEBRUARY 2016).
PRESIDENT MEMBER
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY) (SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
