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
Wednesday the 10th day of December, 2008
C.C.No. 123/08
Between:
K. Venkata Reddy, S/o. Late Seshi Reddy,
H.No.2-12-A, Kapu Veedhi, Resident of Yerramatham Village-518 422, Kothapalli Mandal, Kurnool District. . … Complainant
Versus
- The Branch Manager, LIC of India,
Near New Bus stand, D.No.1-39-15, Atmakur-518 422.
- The Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Divisional Office,
1-55, P.B.No.10, College Road, Kadapa-516 004. .. Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.M.Sivaji Rao , Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri.L.Hari Hara Natha Reddy, Advocate, for the opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Smt. C.Preethi, Lady Member)
C.C.No.123/08
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/S 11 and 12 of C.P.Act , 1986 seeking direction on opposite parties to pay Rs. 1 lakh with 12% interest p.a., compensation , cost and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant is the husband of one Kondakridhi Lakshimidevamma who insured her life with opposite parties under policy bearing No.654125655 for Rs. 1 lakh and nominated the complainant as her nominee . On 09-08-2007 the policy holder fell sick and died , on the claim preferred by the complainant the opposite party repudiated on the ground that deceased did not disclose her correct age. As the policy holder is an illiterate she does not know her correct age approximate nearest estimated age was mentioned and the repudiation by the opposite parties is on flimsy ground and amounts to deficiency of service.
3. In support of her case the complainant relied on the following documents viz., (1) xerox copy of LIC Golden Jubilee Policy bearing No. 654125655 , (2) xerox copy of death certificate , and (3) repudiation letter dated 22-12-2007 , besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of her complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A3 for its appreciation in this case and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
4. 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 . The opposite party No.2 filed written version and opposite party No.1 adopted the written version of opposite party No.2.
5. The written version of opposite parties denies the complaint as not maintainable either in law or on facts but admits the deceased Kondakridhi Lakshimidevamma has obtained a policy bearing No.654125655 and nominated the complainant as his nominee. The policy holder has taken another policy earlier to this policy with policy bearing No.652597601 for Rs.1 lakh and the proposal submitted for said policy the date of birth of policy holder was mentioned as 01-07-1956 and in case of self declaration the maximum sum assured is Rs. 1lakh as per the Corporation Rules (Central Office Circular) . The policy holder did not submit her age proof and as the maximum sum assured is Rs. 1 lakh in case of self declaration, the opposite party settled the claim of the previous policy for Rs. 1,37,600/- on 09-05-2008. After receiving the claim amount under the previous policy the complainant filed this case with malafide intention to get wrongful gain. The complainant informed the death of the policy holder on 09-08-2007 , as the claim aroused within 2 years from the date of commencement investigation was conducted , which revealed that the policy holder with held material information regarding her age and she has taken another policy i.e., 652597601 for Rs. 1 lakh and the policy holder did not disclose the said policy in the proposal form for obtaining policy bearing No.654125655 . As the policy holder intentionally did not mention the previous policy and withheld information regarding her age as such the policy in question was declared as void abinitio and lastly submits that there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite parties and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with cost.
6. In support of their case the opposite parties relied on the following documents viz., (1) Proposal form for insurance dated 22-02-2006 , (2) Policy bond ( Golden Jubilee ) policy No. 654125655 ,(3) Agent’s onfidential report (4) Statement of the proposal, (5) Xerox copy of house hold card (6) Xerox copy of voter list of Yerramatam Village (7) Claimants statement (8) Medical attendance certificate (9) Certificate of hospital treatment (10)Certificate of as to identify of K. Laxmi Devi (11) Proposal for insurance dated 25-3-2001(12) policy bond No.652597601 (13) Circular of LIC of India dated 31-12-2003 (14) Xerox copy of statement of the proposer dated 25-03-2001 (15) Xerox copy of declaration of age (16) Medical examination confidential report dated 27-03-2001 (17) Authorization of OP.No.2 dated 09-09-2008, besides to the sworn affidavit of opposite party No.2 in reiteration of his written version averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.B1 to B17 for its appreciation in this case and replies to the interrogatories exchanged .
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties .?
8. It is the case of the complainant that his wife K. Laxmi Devamma has taken a policy bearing No.654125655 Vide Ex.B2/A1 for Rs. 1,00,000/- and Ex B1 in the proposal form for obtaining policy in Ex.A1/B2. On 09.08.2007 the policy holder fell sick and died and on the claim preferred by the complainant it was repudiated by the opposite parties vide Ex A3. The Ex. A3 is the repudiation letter dated 22.12.2007 of opposite parties addressed to the complainant, where in, it repudiates the claim of the complainant on the ground that the policy holder with held correct information regarding her age and the policy holder did not disclose that she held another policy no.652597601.
9. The main contention of opposite parties is that the policy holder with held correct information regarding her age and non disclosure of another policy No.652597601. The opposite parties submitted that the policy holder at the time obtaining policy in Ex.B2 submitted proposal vide Ex.B1. In reply to question no.9 the policy holder did not disclose that she held another policy bearing no.652597601. The opposite party submitted that as the policy holder intentionally did not disclose the particulars of her previous policy and obtained this policy, the nominee is not remaining entitled to assured amount under the policy in Ex.B2. The policy holder did not submit her age proof to obtain policy in Ex.B2, as per the circular dt.31.12.2003 of LIC of India vide Ex.B13, in case of self declaration of age the maximum sum assured is restricted to Rs. 1,00,000/- only. If the policy holder has disclosed her previous policy in question “No.9” in proposal form (Ex.B1), the policy in Ex.B2 would not have been issued. For the non disclosure of the previous policy in the proposal form, the assured amount under policy in Ex.B2 is not payable to the nominee. As per clause ‘g’ of circular dated 31.12.2003 of LIC of India at page 3, the maximum insurance cover is restricted to Rs. 1, 00,000/- in case of self declaration and as the opposite parties have already settled the claim of the complainant under the previous policy (Ex.B12) held by the deceased K.Laxmi Devamma for Rs.1, 37,600/- on 09.05.2008, the claim under this policy bearing no.654125655 (Ex.B2) was not considered by the opposite parties , as cannot be allowed under self declaration clause.
10. Hence in the circumstances discussed above there appears no error, defect or deficiency on part of LIC (opposite parties) in repudiating the claim of the complainant preferred on the policy no.654125655 of his deceased wife. As the case of the complainant is suffering for want of proper cause of action, the complainant cannot have any remedy as sought from the opposite parties.
11. In the result, the compliant is dismissed for want of merit and force.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 10th day of December, 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. Xerox copy of LIC Golden Jubilee policy No. 654125655.
Ex.A2. Xerox copy of death certificate.
Ex.A3. Repudiation letter dated 22-12-2007.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Proposal form for insurance dated 22-02-2006
Ex.B2. Policy bond ( Golden Jubilee ) policy No. 654125655.
Ex.B3. Agent’s confidential report.
Ex.B4. Statement of the proposer.
Ex.B5. Xerox copy of house hold card.
Ex.B6. Xerox copy of voter list of Yerramatam Village.
Ex.B7. Claimants statement.
Ex.B8. Medical attendance certificate.
Ex.B9 Certificate of hospital treatment.
Ex.B10. Certificate as to identify of K. Laxmi Devi.
Ex.B11. Proposal for insurance dated 25-3-2001
Ex.B12. policy bond No.652597601.
Ex.B13. Circular of LIC of India dated 31-12-2003.
Ex.B14. Xerox copy of statement of the proposer dated 25-03-2001.
Ex.B15. Xerox copy of declaration of age.
Ex.B16. Medical examination confidential report dated 27-03-2001.
Ex.B17. Authorization of OP.No.2 dated 09-09-2008.
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 :
