Complaint is filed on 22-6-2009
Compliant disposed on 14-6-2010
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::AT:: KARIMNAGAR
PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI K. DEVI PRASAD, B.Sc., LL.B., PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT. E. LAXMI, M.A.LL.M.,PGDCA (Consumer Awareness), MEMBER
HON’BLE SRI. K. CHANDRA MOHAN RAO, B.COM ., LL.B., MEMBER
MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND TEN
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 99 OF 2009
Between:
Vadluri Swarupa, W/o. Late V. Laxminarayana, Age 25 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Katkur village of Bheemadevarapally mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Complainant
AND
- The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Husnabad.
- The Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Divisional Office, Near Ambedkar Stadium, Karimnagar.
…Opposite Parties
This complaint is coming up before us for final hearing on 13-5-2010, in the presence of Sri V. Indrasena Rao, Advocate for complainant, and Sri P. Ashok, Advocate for opposite parties, and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration this day, the Forum passed the following:
:: ORDER::
1. This complaint was filed under Section 12 of C.P.Act 1986 on 20.6.2009. The brief facts of the complaint are mentioned below.
2. The complainant is the wife of Sri Vadluri Laxminarayana R/o.Katkur village as under Bheemdevarapalli Mandal of Karimnagar district. The complainant’s husband Sri V.Laxminarayana died on 29.2.2008 due to fever at Katkur village as certified by Thahsildar Bheemdevarapalli Mandal.
3. The deceased took a life policy on 23.3.2007 under table 91/20, New Janaraksha plan with profits (with accident benefits) assuring payment of Rs.1,00,000/- with vested bonus for death payable by opposite party no.1. He was issued a bond under policy no.684731744 wherein the complainant was mentioned as nominee and legal heir.
4. The deceased paid the due policy installments before his death on 22.2.2008 and so the policy was in force on the date of his death. Being the nominee the complainant submitted death claim along with claim forms and relevant papers to opposite party no.1 under the policy no.684731744 claiming payment of Rs.1,00,000/- with bonus as assured under the said policy.
5. The complainant visited opposite party no.1 number of times with request for settlement of her claim but without any response. After a long wait for 11 months the opposite parties informed the complainant through a registered letter Dt: 31.3.2009 that her claim was rejected. The letter was posted on 22.4.2009 and received by the complainant on 25.4.2009. The reasons mentioned in the letter of opposite party are utterly false and fabricated with intention to escape payment of policy amount, due to which the complainant was subjected to much mental agony. The complainant made several representations to opposite party no.1 at Husnabad and opposite party no.2 at Karimnagar but in vain. The opposite parties are under legal obligation to settle her claim. As such, repudiation of her claim and delayed reply by opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service.
6. So the complainant filed this complaint in this Forum praying for direction to opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- under death claim under Janaraksha policy no.684731744, any costs for mental agony and costs for legal proceedings with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this complaint till realization.
7. Opposite parties filed counter on 18.11.2009 and written arguments on 13.5.2010 disputing the claim of the complainant that the deceased died on 29.2.2008 and stated that he actually died on 19.2.2008 and the defaulted premium due for September 2007 was paid on 22.2.2008 i.e. after the death of life assured. Opposite parties affirm that the deceased died on 19.2.2008 based on the certificate issued by Thahsildar, Husnabad. Opposite parties submitted that the premium for September, 2007 was over due and so the policy was lapsed as the premium was not paid within the grace period. The policy cannot be revived if the premium is paid after the death of life assured.
8. In this case the life assured died on 19.2.2008 and the over due premium was paid on 22.2.2008 i.e. after the death of the life assured. As such the said policy was in lapsed condition and nothing is payable to the complainant as per policy conditions. As per policy condition no.3 a policy has to be revived during the life time of the life assured only. The policy cannot be revived after the death of the life assured.
9. As such the claim of the complainant is false and untrue. The allegations made by the complainant are that she visited the office of opposite parties many times is totally false, incorrect and fabricated. Infact the complainant was informed through registered letter Dt: 31.3.2009 that the said policy was in lapsed condition as on the date of death of the life assured i.e. on 19.2.2008 and hence nothing was payable as per policy conditions. As such opposite parties cannot be held deficient of service and so the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
10. In the written arguments opposite parties relying on the Death Certificate issued by Thahsildar, Husnabad showing the date of death as 19.2.2008 termed the Death Certificate issued by Thahsildar Bheemdeverapalli (showing the date of death is 29.2.2008) as false. Opposite parties submit that they received complaint from one Kaluguri Sudhakar Reddy stating that the deceased was a HIV patient for last 10 years and had died on 19.2.2008.
11. Since the policy was not revived during the life time of the life assured the policy remained in lapsed condition and so the claim of the complainant was repudiated.
12. The complainant filed affidavit and Proof Affidavit reiterating all the allegations and prayers made in the complaint. The complainant filed written arguments on 28.4.2010 denying all the counter allegations made in the counter. The complainant filed documents marked under Ex.A1 to A4. Ex.A1 is the Xerox copy of Policy Bond Dt: 23.4.2007. Ex.A2 is the original Death Certificate of policy holder Dt: 1.5.2008. Ex.A3 is the repudiation letter addressed to complainant Dt: 13.3.2009. Ex.A4 is another letter from opposite party no.2 addressed to complainant Dt: 31.3.2009.
13. Opposite parties filed documents marked under Ex.B1 to B6. Ex.B1 is the original policy bond of deceased with terms and conditions. Ex. B2 is the Status Report of Policy no.684731744 Dt: 8.9.2008. Ex.B3 is the Death Certificate issued by MRO, Bheemdevarapalli Dt: 1.5.2008. Ex.B4 is an affidavit filed by K.Sudhakar Reddy V/o. Katkur, M/o. Bheemdevarapalli. Ex.B5 is another Death Certificate of deceased issued by Thahsildar, Husnabad Dt.Karimnagar. Ex.B6 & A4 are one and the same documents.
14. The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and if so what relief can be awarded?
15. A perusal of records and documents revealed the fact that the claim of the complainant was repudiated by opposite party no.1 vide its letter Ex.B6 Dt: 31.3.2009 stating that the policy of the deceased (husband of the complainant) was in lapsed conditions on the date of his death i.e. 19.2.2008 and that the over due premium due in September 2007 was paid on 22.2.2008 i.e. after the death of the life assured. Opposite parties pleaded that policy cannot be revived after the death of the life assured as per policy conditions contained in Ex.B1.
16. In order to substantiate its rejection opposite party no.1 filed the Death Certificate Ex.B5 issued by Thahsildar, Husnabad wherein place of death is mentioned as Husnabad and date of death as 19.2.2008.
17. But actually the deceased died at Katkur viilage which is under Bheemdevarapalli Mandal as per the LIC Bond Ex.B1. Therefore, the Death Certificate Ex.A2 issued by Thahsildar, Bheemdevarapalli is valid and reliable, while the certificate Ex.B5 cannot be relied upon as it is issued by the Thahsildar, Husnabad, who has no jurisdiction over Katkur (v). Further the address shown in the LIC Bond supports that the deceased is R/o. Katkur(V) under Bheemdevarapalli Mandal.
18. This certificate Ex.A2 shows the date of death of life assured as 29.2.2008. Therefore when the document Ex.A2 is found to be genuine, it is concluded that the date of the death of life assured shown in Ex.A2 is proved to be correct. As such the over due premium was paid before the death of the life assured, which renders the contention of opposite parties redundant and infructuous.
19. From this it is evident that the opposite parties with an intention to defeat the claim of the complainant pleaded that the over due premium was paid after the death basing on the Death Certificate Ex.B5. Besides opposite parties admitted that the over due premium was paid by the life assured on 22.2.2008, knowingfully well that the policy cannot be revived after the lapse of grace period as per the condition of the policy. So when the premium was accepted on 22.2.2008 and that to before the death on 29.2.2008 it ought to be presumed that the policy was in force as on the date of death of life assured, which strengthens the claim of the complainant. As such opposite parties are held deficient of service towards the complainant.
20. The opposite parties further introduced a letter Ex.B4 from a private person by name Sri K.Sudhakar Reddy in support of their plea in which he says that the deceased was suffering from HIV Positive for last 10 years and died on 19.2.2008. But in view of above observation it is not relevant in the absence of any medical record in support the plea of opposite parties. All the above facts constitute that the opposite parties are deficient in service towards complainant.
21. In the result the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as assured under the policy no. 684731744 with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 22.6.2009 and Rs.1,000/- as costs within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to Stenographer and transcribed by her, after correction the orders pronounced by us in the open court this the 14th day of June, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
NO ORAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADDUCED ON EITHER SIDE
FOR COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 is the Xerox copy of Policy Bond Dt: 23.4.2007.
Ex.A2 is the original Death Certificate of policy holder Dt: 1.5.2008.
Ex.A3 is the repudiation letter addressed to complainant Dt: 13.3.2009.
Ex.A4 is another letter from opposite party no.2 addressed to complainant Dt: 31.3.2009.
FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:
Ex.B1 is the original policy bond of deceased with terms and conditions.
Ex. B2 is the Status Report of Policy no.684731744 Dt: 8.9.2008.
Ex.B3 is the Death Certificate issued by MRO, Bheemdevarapalli Dt: 1.5.2008.
Ex.B4 is an affidavit filed by K.Sudhakar Reddy V/o. Katkur, M/o. Bheemdevarapalli.
Ex.B5 is another Death Certificate of deceased issued by Thahsildar, Husnabad Dt.Karimnagar.
Ex.B6 & A4 are one and the same documents.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
