BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy B. Com., LL.B., Member
Wednesday the 6th day of July, 2005
C.D.No. 10/2005
Y.Rama Lakshmma, W/o. Y.Chinna Yella Reddy,
R/o. Katikam Street, Koilakuntla, Kurnool Dist.
. . . Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Divisional Manager,
LIC of India, Cuddapah.
2. The Branch Manager,
LIC of India, Banaganapalli, Kurnool Dist. . . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on 4.7.2005 for arguments in the presence Sri A.Ramasubba Reddy, Advocate for complainant and Sri L. Hari haranatha Reddy Advocate, for opposite parties1 and 2 stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Member)
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P Act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay assured amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with 24 % interest from the date of death, Rs. 10,000/- as compensation, costs of complaint and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitle in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant is the mother of Late Y. Nageswar Reddy, who assured his life with opposite parties under policy bearing No. 653039093 for assured sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with accidental benefit and profits, by paying Rs. 6,179/- and the said policy commenced from 07.03.2003 for a period of 18 years.
3. On 18.9.2003 the said Y. Nageswar Reddy returned from agricultural field with acute vomiting and motions and died at 2.15 P.M before shifting him to the hospital. The death information was given to opposite party No.2 on 23.1.2003 and complainant submitted claim form with all required formalities with a covering letter dt 12.12.2003, to the dismay of the complainant the opposite party No.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant stating that the deceased assured committed suicide. But the complainant submits that the opposite parties have no basis to say, that the assured committed suicide, therefore the repudiation is arbitrary and without any basis and there is deficiency of service, on part of opposite parties in repudiating the claim of the complainant.
4. In support of his case the complainant relied on the following documents Viz (1) office copy of letter dt 23.10.2003 of complainant to opposite party No.2 (2) letter dt 28.10.2003 of opposite party No.2 to the complainant (3) Xerox copy of letter dt 12.12.2003 of complainant to opposite party No.2 (4) letter dt 20.02.2004 of opposite party No.2 to the complainant (5) Legal notice dt 25.02.2004 of complainant to opposite party No.2 (6) letter dt 4.3.2004 of complainant to opposite party (7) letter dt 12.3.2004 of opposite party to the complainant (8) letter dt 24.3.2004 of opposite party No.2 to complainant (9) letter dt 3.4.2004 of complainant to opposite party No.2 and (10) repudiation letter dt 31.3.2004 of opposite party to the complainant, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of her complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.10 for its appreciation in this case and caused interrogatories to opposite party No.1 and third party.
5. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filing written version of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 adopt the written version of opposite party No.1.
6. The sworn affidavit of opposite parties denies the complaint of the complainant as is not maintainable either in law or on facts and denies the allegations made in the complaint. But admits the deceased Y.Nageswar Reddy holding a policy bearing No. 653039093 commenced from 7.3.2003 for assured sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and nominated his mother Y.Ramalaxamma as his beneficiary to the policy amount, as death of the deceased aroused within a short period of 6months and 11 days from the date of commencement of policy, the opposite parties conducted investigation to know the health conditions of the deceased life assured and also to know the exact cause of death as one does not immediately die due to motions and vomitings. The investigation was conducted by our Branch Manager, Banaganapalli, who stated that the assured Y.Nageswar Reddy has committed suicide by consuming pesticides and died within 30 minutes from the time of vomiting and motions. Hence, the cause for the death the life assured is due to consumption of pesticides, the said fact of committing suicide by the assured Y.Nageswar Reddy was brought to our notice by the investigation officer i.e Branch Manager, Banaganapalli and also the confidential report submitted by our agent Sri Y.V. Nageswarlu, which was submitted after due inquires in the Koilakuntla Village of the life assured. As the assured death is due to suicide by consumption of pesticides and sum assured is not payable to the complainant under the said policy as per the condition 6 of the policy conditions. Therefore the opposite parties rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant and seeks for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
7. In support of his case the opposite parties filed following documents Viz (1) confidential report of agent Y.V Nageswarlu dt 10.12.2003 (2) policy bearing No. 653039093, dt 7.3.2003 and (3) repudiation letter dt 31.3.2003, besides to the sworn affidavit of opposite parties and a third party sworn affidavit of Y.V.Nageswarlu and opposite party No.1 and third party suitable replied to the interrogatories caused by the complainant and the above documents are marked as Ex B.1 to B.3 for its appreciation in this case.
8. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitle alleging deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties:-
9. It is a simple case of the complainant that her son Y. Nageswar Reddy died on 18.9.2003 due to vomitings and motions, on the claim preferred by her the opposite parties repudiated the claim stating that the assured committed suicide. But the complainant submits that her son died due to vomtings and motions only and not a suicide, but as against to it the written version of opposite parties in para 5 alleges that the life assured consumed pesticides and died as per the investigation report of their Branch Manager, Banaganapalli and confidential report by their agent Y.V Nageswarlu.
10. In support of the supra stated contention of the opposite perties as is mentioned in the Ex B.1 confidential report of the Y.V. Nageswarlu agent of opposite parties, dt 10.12.2003 envisages the death of the assured Y.Nageswar Reddy as suicide and the said information has been obtained from the neighbors of the deceased. Subsequent to the said confidential report in Ex B.1 relied by opposite parties, the said statement of complainant on this aspect not only remains highly inconsistence but also there by untrust worthy and as consists of any bonafidies of the complainant in that regard. Therefore, what follows is that the deceased consumed pesticides and died and the complainant’s side did not file any cogent material rebutting the contentions of the opposite parties, hence there appears every bonafidies of the opposite parties in their hesitation and there appears no deficiency of service on part of opposite parties in rejecting the claim of the complainant
11. The third party affidavit of Y.V.Nageswarlu in support of the confidential report relied by the opposite parties, envisages that he has enquired the neighbors of the deceased who are residing the same locality i.e in Guddeti street, Koilakuntla. The neighbors informed him that the deceased Y.Nageswar Reddy died by committing suicide by consuming pesticides in his field on 18.9.2003. The said sworn affidavit was questioned by the complainant’s side by causing interrogatories. Which are suitably replied by the third party. The complainant did not file any other material contradicting the sworn affidavit of the third party, and the contentions of opposite party hence they remained unchallenged, hence it remains established that the assured policy holder death is due to consumption of pesticides only and no supporting material is placed by the complainant stating that the death of life assured is not due to consumption of pesticides.
12. All the above material indicates in uni-tone that the opposite parties rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant as the life assured’s death is due to consumption of pesticides only i.e suicide.
13. Hence, their appears no deficiency of service on part of opposite parties side towards the complainant. The complainant except alleging repudiation of claim by the opposite parties and filling Ex A.1 to A.10 did not substantiating their bonafidies and malafides of the opposite parties by substantiating the same by any accepting corroborative material.
14. Hence, in the circumstances discussed above as there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite parties in repudiating the claim of the complaint as it has been established that the death of life assured is suicide by consuming pesticides, hence, the opposite parties rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant.
15. In the result, the complaint is dismissed for want of merit and force.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the dictation corrected by us Pronounced in the Open Court this the 6th day of July, 2005.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant For the opposite parties
-Nil- -Nil-
List of Exhibits Marked
For the complainant For the opposite parties
Ex A.1 office copy of letter dt 23.10.03 Ex B.1 confidential report of agent
of complainant to opposite party No.2. dt 10.12.2003.
Ex A.2 Letter dt 28.10.03 of opposite Ex B.2 policy No. 653039093
party No.2 to the complainant. dt 7.3.2003.
Ex A.3 Xerox copy of letter dt 12.12.03 Ex B.3 Repudiation letter dt 31.3.2004
of complainant to opposite party No.2.
Ex A.4 letter dt 20.2.2004 of opposite
Party No.2 to the complainant.
Ex A.5 Legal notice dt 25.2.2004 of
complainant to opposite party No.2.
Ex A.6 Letter dt 4.3.2004 of complainant
to opposite party.
Ex A.7 letter dt 12.3.2004 of opposite
Party to the complainant.
Ex A.8 Letter dt 24.3.2004 of opposite
Party No.2 to complainant.
Ex A.9 Letter dt 3.4.2004 of complainant
To opposite party No.2.
Ex A.10 repudiation letter dt 31.3.2004 of
Opposite party to the complainant.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
