F.A.No.1307/2010 against  C.C.No.68/2009, District Forum, Kurnool.

Between

N.Uma Devi,

W/o.Late Raja Gopal Reddy,

Aged 30 years, Hindu,

H.No.13-13/5, Netaji Road,

Koilakuntla (V) & (M),

Kurnool District – 518 123.                                   …Appellant/

                                                                           Complainant

        And

1.The Branch Incharge,

M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Shop No.10,11,13 , Alankar Plaza,

D.No.40/356/A, IIIrd floor,

Kurnool – 518 002. 

2. M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.  Ltd.,

    Rep. by its Deputy Manager for T.P. Claims

    Regional Office, Macmet Building ,

    10-B, O.C. Ganguly Sarani,

     Kolkata – 700 020.                                                 …Respondents/

                                                                           Opp.parties

Counsel for the Appellant            :   Mr.M.Ram Gopal Reddy     

Counsel for the respondents        :  Mr.N.Mohan Krishna-R1

QUORUM:THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

     AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE   MEMBER.

         THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY,

TWO THOUSAND TWELVE

         (Typed to dictation of   Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)

                                        ****

        Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.68/2009  on the file of District Forum, Kurnool, the complainant preferred this appeal .

        The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant’s husband became member of   Golden Multi  Service Club  through which  Club the  opposite party issued  insurance policy covering  the accidental risk upto Rs.1 lakh for the period from 30.5.2005  to 29.10.2010. While so, on 10.4.2007,  the policy holder died in a road accident and immediately  the complainant gave death intimation and  preferred a claim and even got issued a legal notice on 29.12.2007  to the opposite parties demanding the assured amount.  But on 19.6.2008  the opposite parties rejected the complainant’s claim stating    that the signatures found in the proposal form and the signatures on the pan card  and the driving license of late Raja Gopal Reddy who is the policy holder herein, differ.  The complainant submits that the proposal  form was signed by late Raja Gopal Reddy  only and that there was no misrepresentation. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay the sum assured with interest , compensation  and costs. 

        Opposite party no.1 was set exparte.  Opposite party no.2 filed written version stating that the complainant is not a consumer and contends that the signatures of the policy holder late N.Raj Gopal Reddy in the proposal  differs from the signatures  on the pan card and the driving license.   An expert also gave finding that the signatures were different.  The proposal form was   not signed by the policy holder and they also contend  that the policy was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation   and therefore  their repudiation  is justified. 

        The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A4 and B1 to B6  dismissed the complaint. 

        Aggrieved by the said order the complainant preferred this appeal .

        It is the complainant’s case  that her husband  late  N.Raja Gopal Reddy  became a member of Golden Multi Service  Club  through which the opposite parties issued   insurance policy for an amount of Rs.1 lakh  for the period from 30.5.2005 to 29.10.2010 as evidenced under Ex.A1. While so, on 10.4.2007, as evidenced under Ex.A2,  F.I.R.,  the life assured died in an accident.  It is not in dispute that the complainant  preferred a claim but the opposite parties vide ExA4 letter dt.19.6.2008 cancelled the policy stating that the policy holder  i.e. late N.Raja Gopal Reddy never  signed the proposal form as his signature on the driving license  and Pan Card differ from the signature on the proposal form. Ex.B1  is the copy of the policy  issued to the policy holder.     Ex.B4 is the  copy of the proposal form wherein  the  proposer  N.Raja Gopal Reddy  had signed.   The opposite party   filed  a copy of  the driving license  and  copy of the pan card and  contend that the signatures of the life assured on  driving license  and   pan card differ from the  signatures   on the proposal form. With respect to the   report of the hand   writing  analyst  not only  was the  expert not examined,  the complainant  was  also not  given an opportunity   to prove that the analyst  report is not correct.  Exfacie, the insurance  company cannot repudiate the same on the said ground, more so,  when they have issued the policy and taken the signatures of the proposer on the proposal form   cannot now take  umbrage that the signature differs.   The accident and the issuance of the policy are not  in dispute. There are no substantial reasons  as to how  the policy was issued when the proposer himself did not sign the proposal form.  Any such verification ought to have been done prior to the issuance of the policy and not at this belated stage i.e. after the issuance of the policy and after the death of the life assured.  We also observe from the record that the insured died on 10.4.2007 whereas the policy was repudiated by the opposite parties vide Ex.A4 dt.19.6.2008 which is  more than  a year after the death of the insured and the claim being  made.   We rely on the judgement of the Apex Court in UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. M/S.M.K.J.CORPORATION reported in 1986-1999 Consumer 4781 NS(1998 (2) CLT 489 SC  in which it is held  as follows:

“two months is reasonable time for the insurance

company to take a decision, whether the claim requires

          to be settled or rejected in accordance with the policy”.

 From the afore mentioned judgement it is  clear that  two months time  is reasonable for the Insurance  Company to settle or  reject the claim which in the instant case the opposite parties  have clearly flouted  and have taken more than  a year to  reject the claim which  act also construes  deficiency of service.   

        For the afore mentioned reasons, we are of the considered  view that the sole  ground given by the opposite parties in repudiating the  said claim is unjustified and therefore we set aside the  order of the District Forum. and we direct the opposite parties   to pay to the complainant the sum assured of Rs.1 lakh together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation  i.e. 19.6.2008  together with  costs of Rs.5000/-

In the result this appeal is allowed and order of the District Forum is set aside and we direct the opposite parties   to pay to the complainant the sum assured of Rs.1 lakh together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation  i.e. 19.6.2008  together with  costs of Rs.5000/-. Time for compliance four weeks. 

                                                                PRESIDENT

                                                                MEMBER

Pm*                                                          Dt.16.2.2012