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
Tuesday the 23rd day of March, 2006
C.C.No.178/2005
Bana Raja Gopal Reddy, S/o Late Bana Rami Reddy, Aged about 32 years, Hindu,
R/o Tagatore village, Banaganapalli (M), Kurnool district.
. . . Complainant
V/s
1.The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Banaganapalli, Kurnool District.
2. The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India,
P.B.No.10, College Road, Kadapa.
. . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming 16.03.2006 for arguments in the presence of Sri B.Adi Narayana Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri A.V.Subramanyam, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.1 and No.2, and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Smt.C.Preethi, Hon’ble Member)
1. This Consumer Complaint of the complainant is filed under Section 11 and 12 of C.P. Act, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay assured amount of Rs.25,000/- with 24% interest per annum, Rs.20,000/- towards compensation, Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the complaint 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’s father B.Rami Reddy insured his life with opposite parties under the policy bearing No.653106013 for assured sum of Rs.25,000/- and nominated the complainant as nominee. The policy holder died on 22-2-2004 due to heart attack and the claim was submitted by the complainant to the opposite parties. But the opposite parties on 23-10-2004 repudiated the claim stating that the deceased grossly under stated his age by about 20 years. But the complainant submits that his father has not suppressed his age and alleges deficiency of service on opposite parties for dishonouring his valid claim.
3. In substantiation of his case the complainant relied on the following documents. Viz (1) Death certificate of the policy holder B.Rami Reddy dated 18-3-2004 and (2) Repudiation letter of opposite parties addressed to the complainant dated 23-10-2004, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 and A2 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant relied on two third parties affidavits of Avva Pulla Reddy and C.Hussain Saheb. The complainant caused interrogatories to opposite parties and suitabely replied to the interrogatories caused by the opposite parties.
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 by filing written version of opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.1 adopted the written version of opposite party No.2.
5. The written version of opposite parties denies any of their liability but admits the policy holder has taken a policy bearing No.653106013 for Rs.25,000/-. On intimation by the complainant as to the death of the policy holder the opposite parties commenced an investigation as the claim aroused within 11 months 7 days from the date of commencement, and it was treated as early claim. The investigation revealed that the age of the policy holder was 53 years at the time of taking policy. But as per voters list identity card issued by Election Commission of India the age of the policy holder was 65 years as on 1-1-1995. As the policy holder declared untrue statement in the proposal form, hence, the contract of insurance was declared as null and void and the opposite parties repudiated the claim through their letter dated 23-10-2004. Therefore, the complainant is not remaining entitle to any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint and seeks for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
6. In substantiation of its case the opposite parties relied on the following documents (1) Proposal form of the policy holder dated 13-2-2003 (2) Policy bond bearing No.653106013 of the deceased B.Rami Reddy (3) Statement of declaration of age by the policy holder (4) Election Identity Card issued to B.Rami Reddy and (5) Repudiation letter of opposite parties addressed to the complainant dated 23-10-2004, besides to the sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.1 and 2 in reiteration of its written version and caused interrogatories to the complainant and suitabely replied to the interrogatories caused by the complainant.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging the deficiency of service on part of opposite parties:?
8. The complainant is a son and nominee of the deceased policy holder B.Rami Reddy and the said policy holder died on 22-2-2004 due to heart attack. On the claim preferred by the nominee the opposite parties repudiated through their letter dated 23-10-2004 stating that the policy holder withheld correct information regarding his age in the proposal form vide Ex.B1, and the Election Identity Card vide Ex.B4 enumerated on 15-12-1995 of Tangutur village reveals that the policy holder was 65 years. Hence, the repudiation by opposite parties was justified. The Ex.B4 is the Election Identity Card which was relied by the opposite parties, the particulars given in the election identity card has no nexus to prove the age of the voters, the effect of voters list is for registration of a person to vote, wherein he is entitled to vote in an election, but to prove the age of a person election identity card cannot be an evidence to be relied on, hence from the contents of Ex.B4 relied by the opposite parties doesn’t inspire any confidence which can be acted upon. The opposite parties having accepted the insurance coverage to the policy holder under the said policy at the relevant time accepting the age, what the policy holder mentioned in the proposal form and accepting the statement regarding the age proof vide Ex.B3 and issuing a policy bond, cannot now take a stand that the policy holder gave untrue statements in the proposal form and in the statement of age proof. Hence, the plea taken by the opposite parties remains as plea for plea sake without any justification.
9. When the death of the policy holder is not in violation of terms and conditions of the policy and when there is no cogent and substantiative material to believe that the policy holder gave untrue statements in the proposal form dated 13-2-2003, the opposite parties has no other go except to honour the terms and conditions of the policy in making its due payments to the nominee/complainant. The third party affidavit of A.Pulla Reddy relied by the complainant says that the deceased was his age i.e. 56 years and the said third party affidavit was not questioned by the opposite party, hence, it stands unrebutted.
10. From the circumstances discussed above there is absolutely no record placed by the opposite party to disbelief the age mentioned in the proposal form as incorrect. Hence, the act of repudiating the claim of the complainant by opposite parties as is remaining without any justifiable excuse and the said conduct of opposite parties is certainly amounting to failure of their part in performing their statutory duty in repudiating the claim and there by amounting to deficiency of service and there by entitling the complainant to reliefs sought.
11. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay to the complainant the assured sum under the policy bearing No. 653106013 of B.Rami Reddy to the complainant with 12% interest from the date of demise of the policy holder till realisation along with cost of Rs.1,000/- within a month of receipt of this order, in default the opposite parties are liable to pay supra awarded amount with 18% interest from the date of default till realisation.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 23rd day of March, 2006.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties: Nil
List of Exhibits Marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Death certificate of the policy holder B.Rami Reddy dated 18-3-2004
Ex.A2 Repudiation letter of opposite parties addressed to the complainant
dated 23-10-2004
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Proposal form of the policy holder dated 13-2-2003
Ex.B2 Policy bond bearing No.653106013 of the deceased B.Rami Reddy
Ex.B3 Statement of declaration of age by the policy holder
Ex.B4 Election Identity Card issued to B.Rami Reddy
Ex.B5 Repudiation letter of opposite parties addressed to the complainant
dated 23-10-2004
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Sri A. B.Adi Narayana Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool
2. Sri A.V.Subramanyam, Advocate, Kurnool
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
