BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Saturday the 22nd day of November, 2008
C.C.No.84/08
Between:
M. Lakshmi Devi, W/o. Late M. Sreenivasa Rao,
H.No.50-348-M-7, Arora Nagar, B-camp Post, Kurnool - 518 002..
… Complainant
Versus
1. Branch Manager, Andhra Bank,
Vignamandiram Branch, B.Camp, Kurnool - 518002.
2. Chief Manager, Credit Card Division,
Andhra Bank Buildings, 5th Floor, Koti, Hyderabad - 5800095.
3. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited,
206 and 207 ,2nd Floor, Sapthagiri Towers, Begum Pet, Hyderabad - 500016.
.. Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. P. Siva Sudharshan, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri. G.S.V.Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and 2, and Sri. D.Yella Reddy, Advocate for opposite party No. 3 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, President)
C.C.No.84/08
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/S 11 and 12 of C.P.Act seeking direction on the opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs. 2 lakhs under insurance covered to credit card No.4511 5000 2541 8107 of deceased M. Sreenivasa Rao and interest at 24% thereafter from 4-9-2005 ( i .e. date of accidental demise of deceased credit card holder) , Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 5,000 as cost of this case alleging that M. Sreenivasa Rao her late husband- holder of above stated classic credit card issued by opposite party No. 2, covering amount of Rs.2 lakhs as accidental insurance , died on 4-9-2005 due to accidental drowning in K.C .Canal and Pamulapadu P.S registered a case U/S 174 Cr.P.C in Cr.NO.34/2005 and dropped action finding no foul play in said demise and the claim submitted by her with all relevant papers was wrongly repudiated by the opposite parties alleging the said accidental demise as suicidal death and the said conduct of the opposite parties is amounting to deficiency of their services holding their liability to the complainants claim .
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant , the opposite parties 1 to 3 caused their appearance through their counsels and contested the case denying their liability to complainants claim filling written version seeking the dismissal of the case with costs.
3. The written version of the opposite party No.1 adopted by opposite party No.2 even though admit the status of the deceased as the Classic Credit Card holder and the coverage of accidental death insurance to said card holder , deny any of its liability to the complainants claim as it has discharged its burden of the submission of all relevant material received from the complainant to the opposite party No3 for their due consideration requesting for its settlement immediately and it is for the opposite party No.3 to give a further disposal there on as per the terms and conditions governing the said claim and memorandum of understanding.
4. The written version of the opposite party No.3 besides questioning the justness and maintainability of the complainants case and requiring the
complainant to strict proof of the complaint averments disputes the bonafides of accidental demise of complainants husband as it was a suicidal one as was found in the report dated 28-03-2006 of its detective agency and the dropping of further action by the police as no foul play involved it as Forescnic Science Laboratory report relating to the viscera of the deceased M. Sreenivasa Rao finds Organo Phosphate insecticide poison and the demise of deceased as due to consumption of said poison and the suicidal death being not covered for the insurance there in there is any improperness in repudiation of the claim and hence there is any liability of it to the complainants claim .
5. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.A1 to A7 besides to her sworn affidavit in reiteration of the complaint averments , the opposite party side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.B1 to B16 and the sworn affidavit of opposite parties 1 and 3 in reiteration of its defence.
6. Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any deficiency of the opposite parties and there by any of their liability to the complainants claim.
7. The Ex.B2 is the attested Xerox of the application of the deceased – M. Sreenivasa Rao – for obtaining Andhra Bank Credit Card . With this it is remaining clear that the deceased M. Sreenivasa Rao has applied for the credit card of the Andhra Bank and in the light of admission of the opposite parties , the said deceased is remaining as holder of Classic Credit Card No.4511- 5000 2541 8107 of Andhra Bank.
8. The Ex.B1 is the printed Model Credit Card application form with terms and conditions and insurance coverage amounts . In the light of the status of the deceased M. Sreenivasa Rao as holder of said classic credit card the terms and conditions mentioned in Ex.B1 governs the said credit card of said deceased card holder . The Ex.B1 envisages accident insurance coverage amount of Rs. 2 lakhs to Visa Classic Card . Hence it remains clear that an accidental death of said type of credit card holder provides an additional benefit of said insurance amount to the said card holder besides to the other useful benefits of the said credit card .
9. The EX.B3 is the attested Xerox of letter dated 14-12-2005 addressed by opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.3 forwarding there with certain relevant documents for consideration of the claim of the complainant. The Ex.B4 is an attested Xerox letter dated 15-10-2005 addressed by opposite party No.2 to the opposite party No3 furnishing there with the information as to the accidental demise of M. Sreenivasa Rao besides to certifying the validity of the credit card of said deceased till January 2006 and the complainant as nominee of said card holder . The Ex.B5 attested Xerox of memorandum of understanding on group personal accident insurance cover policy for credit card holders of Andhra Bank – entered by Andhra Bank with opposite party No.3 which ensures an insurance coverage of Rs. 2 lakhs to Visa Classic Card holder . Cl.9 of Ex.B5 indicates the type of documents to be furnished for consideration of insurance claim . The material of Ex.B3 and B4 indicates that Andhra Bank has complied the requirements of said claim in forwarding the claim of the complainant for accidental death insurance amount of the deceased card holder .
10. As per the material envisaged in Ex.B5 the settlement of claim is purely with in the ambit of the opposite party No.3 and Andhra Bank has no role to play in settlement of claim except forwarding the claim in due compliance of mandatory requirements of Cl.9 of Ex.B5 . As the opposite parties 1 and 2 appears to have duly discharged their liability of the forwarding the claim of complainant in strict compliance of the mandatory requirements of Cl.9 of Ex.B5 vide their letters in Ex.B3 /B10 , Ex.B4 / Ex.B8 there appears any responsibility of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in settlement of the complainants claim which is at the end of the opposite party No.3 vide insurance policy in Ex.B7 and so there remains any deficiency of the opposite parties 1 and 2 towards the complainants claim. Consequently the case of the complainant against the opposite parties 1 and 2 is dismissed.
11. The Ex.A1 is the FIR in Cr.No.34/05 issued by State Police Pamulapadu on the report of the complainant as to the demise of her husband on account of accidental slip into K.C.canal and his drowning there in being he not in know of swimming . The Ex.A2 is the inquest held by police on the dead body of deceased Sreenivasa Rao ( account holder ) also opines the demise of said Sreenivasa Rao was on account of accidental slip into K.C. Canal and his drowning there in being he not in know of swimming and no suspicion on any body or any foul play in said demise. The Ex.A3 post mortem examination report held on the body of deceased Sreenivasa Rao supported by the final opinion of doctor Sharada in Ex.A4 opines the cause of demise of said deceased was due to Asphyxia and Laryngeal Spam due to drowning and remains as basis for the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Pamulapadu for permitting the concerned police for dropping of further action vide its Ex.A5 proceedings dated 02-02-2006 . Hence Prima Facie the above material indicates the demise of said Sreenivasa Rao was on account of accidental drowning and no foul play involved therein .
12. The Ex.B11 is Xerox of the letter dated 19-12-2005 indicates that the opposite party No.3 has entrusted the investigation claim of the complainant to Phantom Detective Agency and the latter after due investigation into the matter submitted its report vide Ex.B13 . The said Ex.B13 report in its page 7 taking reference to a mere recitals of report said to have been submitted by Pamulapadu police to Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Atmakur alleges that the deceased died of taking Organ Phosphate - an insect poison.
13. But in support of said recital any report of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory , Kurnool - which as examined the items of viscera of deceased of M. Sreenivasa Rao has been filed by the opposite party No.3 or its by detective agency . On the other hand the Ex.A4 final report of doctor A.Sharada who conducted post mortem examination on the body of the deceased M. Sreenivasa Rao which originally reserved her opinion pending FSL report on Visera – on the receipt of the report of Assistant Director of Regional Forensic Laboratory , Kurnool vide file No.KNL / TOX/ 698 / 2005 dated 25-10-2005 opines the death of said deceased M. Sreenivasa Rao was due to Asphyxia and Laryngeal Spam due to drowning . The SI police of Pamulapadu basing on the above final opinion of the doctor as to the cause of demise of the deceased – submitted his report vide Ex.A7 to Sub-divisional police officer, Atmakur seeking permission to drop further action observing no foul play in said demise and the said was accepted by Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Atmakur vide Ex.B12 and by Mandal Executive Magistrate , Pamulapadu vide Ex.A5 proceedings in MC.No. 13/05 dated 02-02-2006 .
14. An alleged recital in EX.B13 that the S.I police, Pamulapadu sent a report to the Sub-Divisional police Officer, Atmakur stating that the deceased died of taking Organo Phosphate – an insectcide poison – and the Ex.B16 repeating said recital is remaining of any avail of the opposite party No.3 as neither the Ex.B13 nor the Ex.B16 were substantiated by the affidavits of any concern to that nor to contradict the correctness of the final opinion of the doctor in Ex.A4 which is quite inconsistent to above said recital. Further the bonafidees of Ex.B16 is falling into doubt in the light of the contents of the Ex.A7 same letter addressed to Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Atmakur seeking permission to drop further action – which is not finding the said recital as to doctor opining that “ the deceased died of taking Organo Phosphate – an insecticide poison ‘’
15. In the absence of any FSL report observing the existence of Organo Phosphate – an insecticide poison in any of the items of viscera of deceased sent for analysis and report and any final opinion of the doctor accordingly on the basis of said alleged report originated , there appears any justification to the opposite party No.3 or its detective agency in holding the demise of deceased M. Sreenivasa Rao as a suicidal one and in repudiating vide ExA6 / B14/ B15 the claim of the complainant arising out of the demise of M. Sreenivasa Rao – holder of Classic Credit Card .
16. As the said conduct of the opposite party No.3 in wrongly repudiating the claim of the complainant is not only ensuing considerable mental agony to the complainant but also driven her to the forum for redressal , the liability of the opposite party No.3 holds not only for compensation for mental agony but also to the cost of the case in addition to the insure amount .
17. Consequently, the case of the complainant is allowed against opposite party No.3 only directing it to pay to the complainant the insurance amount of Rs. 2 lakhs - an account of accidental demise of M. Sreenivasa Rao Classic Credit Card holder – and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the case within a month of receipt of this order. In default the opposite party No.3 shall be liable to pay the supra stated award with 12% interest from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 22nd day of November, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.34/05 of Pamulapadu along with report.
Ex.A2. Inquest report.
Ex.A3. Certified copy of post mortem certificate.
Ex.A4. Certified copy of final opinion.
Ex.A5. Proceeding of M.R.O. dated 02-02-2006.
Ex.A6. Claim repudiation letter dated 25-04-2006 of OP.No.2.
Ex.A7. Letter of Sub-Inspector of Police, Pamulapadu Police Station,
to Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Atmakur.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Model credit card application from with terms and conditions and insurance coverage amounts.
Ex.B2. Attested Xerox copy of credit card application of the deceased.
Ex.B3. Office copy of letter dated 14-12-2005 of OP.No.1 to OP.No.3.
Ex.B4. Attested letter dated 15-10-2005 of OP.No.1 to OP.No.3.
Ex.B5. Memorandum of understanding between OP.No.1 to 3 as to policy covering credit card holders.
Ex.B6. Terms and conditions group personal accident policy.
Ex.B7. Certified copy of insurance policy bearing No .052000 /42/04/ 00553.
Ex.B8. Letter dated 15-10-2005 of OP.No.2 to OP.No.3 .
Ex.B9. Letter dated 18-10-2005 of OP.No.3 to the complainant.
Ex.B10. Letter dated 14-12-2005 of OP.No.2 to OP.No.3 with
Enclosures 5 in number.
Ex.B11. Letter dated 19-12-2005 of insurance company to detective agaency.
Ex.B12. Letter dated 31-01-2006 of Sub Divisional Police officer,
Atmakur to SI of Police, Pamulapadu.
Ex.B13. Final investigation report of phantom detective agency,
Dated 28-03-2006 to
Ex.B14. Claim note.
Ex.B15. Letter dated 18-04-2006 of OP.No.3 to OP.No.2.
Ex.B16. Letter of SI of Police Station, Pamulapadu to Sub Divisional Police Officer, Atmakur , as to Cr.No.34/05 of Police Station, Pamulapadu.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
