BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt.C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member
Wednesday the 13th day of September, 2006
C.C.No.29/2006
1. M.Raghu Babu S/o Chinna Linganna,
2. M.Kumari W/o M.Raghu Babu,
R/o of H.No.50/348-L-24-A, Arora Nagar, B.Camp, Kurnool Dist. …Complainant
-Vs-
- The Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Kurnool Dist.
2. The Headmaster, Govt. Boys High School,
Kurnool Dist. …Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for Orders in the presence of Sri Ch. Joga Rao, Advocate, Kurnool for Complainant and Sri. D. Srinivasulu Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.1 and Smt. A.Umadevi, Advocate Kurnool Opposite Parties 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 Lady Member)
1. This consumer 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 with bonus and interest, Rs.35,000/-for mental agony, costs 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 complainants son M. Sreekant studying 10th class in opposite party No.2 school, and opposite party No.2 has taken a policy of Students Safety (Group) Insurance policy bearing No. 188/ 2005 covering all the students of their school. The complainant’s son on 26.9.2004 on the day of Vinayaka Nimazzanam slipped near the bank of the canal and died. The complainant’s informed opposite party No.2 about the death of their son and preferred a claim along with death certificate and study certificate but to the dismay of the complainant’s, the claim was repudiated on 19.9.2005 by opposite party No.1, hence the complainants resorted to forum for redressal.
3. In support of their case the complainant’s relied on the following documents Viz (1) attested xerox copy of policy issued to District Collector and Chairman DPEP, (2) study certificate of M. Sreekanth issued by opposite party No.2 (3) Death Certificate of M. Sreekanth (4) office copy of letter dt 18.1.2005 of complainants to opposite party No.2 (5) repudiation letter dt 19.9.2005 addressed to opposite party No.2 by opposite party No.1, copy addressed to complainant and (6) News paper cuttings, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of their complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.6 for its
appreciation in this case. The complainant caused interrogatories to opposite parties 1 and 2 and suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by the opposite party No.1 and 2.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties appeared through their standing counsels and contested the case by filling separate denial written versions.
5. The written version of opposite party No.1 submits that it is District Collector cum Chairman DPAP Kurnool who has taken the policy and not opposite party No.2 and further submits that claim form was received by their office on 18.8.2005 i.e nearly after11 months of the death and as per condition No.1 of the policy “ upon the happening of any event which may give rise of aclaim under this policy, written notice with full particulars must be given to the company immediately. In case of
death, written notice also of death must, unless reasonable cause be given interment/cremation and in any case within one calendar month after the death”. Therefore, the claim reached hopelessly beyond limitation as prescribed in condition No.1 and the claim is repudiated and seeks for the dismissal of complaint.
6.The written version of opposite party No.2 denies the complaint as not maintainable either in law or on facts, and submits that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party i.e District Collector cum Chairman DPEP and admits that deceased was admitted to 10th class in their school and the deceased was covered under the policy issued by opposite party No.1 and said fact is not known to her nor she received any copy of the policy. The premium of the policy was paid by District Collector and the policy was issued in his name. The complainants informed the death of the M. Sreekanth on 18.1.2005 along with death certificate and immediately opposite party No.2 addressed a letter dt 5.2.2005 to M.E.O.Kurnool, who is proper authority to look into the matter and question of delay doesn’t arisen. But the opposite party No.1 repudiated the claim by its letter dt 19.9.2005 under condition No.1 of the policy. Thus, the delay in filing the claim was with the complainants only and there is no fault or laches on part of opposite party No.2 and lastly submits that the deceased was covered under the policy issued by opposite party No.1 and hence opposite party No.1 only is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainants and seeks for the dismissal of complaint against opposite party No.2.
7. The opposite party No.1& 2 in support of their case did not file any documents but filed their sworn affidavit in reiteration of their written versions as defence and caused interrogatories to the complainant and suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by the complainant.
8. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service:-
10. It is a simple case of the complainants, that their son M. Sreekanth studying in opposite party No.2’s school died due to drowing on 26.9.2004 on the day of Vinayaka Nimazzanam and alleges that opposite party No.2 has taken a policy from opposite party No.1 vide Ex A.1 covering its students, the perusal of Ex A.1 shows that the policy was issued to District Collector and Chairman DPEP and the said policy commenced from 15.8.2004 to 14.8.2005 and the said policy was not issued to opposite party No.2 as alleged by the complainant in their complaint averments . A letter dt 18.1.2005 was submitted by the complainant to opposite party No.2 vide Ex A.4, the Ex A.4 envisages that the letter dt 18.1.2005 was submitted to opposite party No.2 by the complainants inturn to send the same to opposite party No.1 (Insurance Company). Thereafter, the said letter was forwarded to concerned authorities by opposite party No.2 and infact claim form reached opposite party No.1 on 18.8.2005 and opposite party No.1 repudiated the said claim vide Ex.A5 as there was delay in claiming the policy amount as per policy condition No.1 of the said policy. As the claim form reached opposite party No.1 after the lapse of policy period and after 11 months after the death of the deceased, which is clear violation of policy condition No1 of the said policy which says that death intimation should be given within one month from the date of death. Therefore it is clear that there is enormous delay in putting up the claim itself and the Law doesn’t come to the rescue of those persons who sleeps over their rights. Hence, the complainant cannot take excuse of their unawareness of the policy and cannot seek any relief from the opposite party No.1. The intimation of death of M. Sreekanth to opposite party No.2 was given on 18.1.2005, there is delay of 4 months in approaching opposite party No.2 also. Hence the complainants cannot seek any relief against opposite party No.2 also.
11. As there is clear violation of condition No.1 of the said policy by the complainant’s, hence the opposite party No.1 has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainants and no deficiency of service was made out against opposite party No.2 also hence, the complaint is dismissed for want of merit and force.
12. Hence, the complaint is dismissed for want of merit and force.
Dictation to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open Court this the 13th day of September, 2006.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the Complainant: Nil For the opposite Party: Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the Complainant:-
Ex.A1 Attested copy policy (No.188/2005 Student Safety Insurance).
Ex.A2 Study certificate of Deceased issued by opposite party No.2.
Ex.A3 Death certificate of deceased.
Ex.A4 Office copy of letter dt 18.01.2005 addressed by complainant to
Opposite party No.2.
Ex.A5 Repudiation letter, dt 19.09.2005 addressed to opposite party No.2
by opposite party No.1 copy to complainant
Ex.A6 Daily news paper cutting dt 26.09.2004.
List of Exhibits marked for the Opposite Party :- Nil
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:
1.Sri. Ch. Joga Rao, Advocate Kurnool.
2.Sri.D. Srinivasulu, Advocate Kurnool.
3.Smt. A. Umadevi, Advocate Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
