Before the District Forum:Kurnool
Present Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Friday 30th day of January, 2004
C.D.No.03/2003
Kuruva Lakshmi Devi,
W/o Nadipi Beesanna,
R/o Pandipadu Village,
Kallur Mandal,
Kurnool District. . . . Complainant represented by his Counsel
Sri.G.Sreenivasulu, Advocate.
-Vs-
- The Manager,
Kurnool District Co-Operative Central Bank,
Krishna Nagar Branch,
Kallur,
Kurnool District. . . . Opposite party
- The Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Bhupal Complex,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite party represented by his Counsel
Sri.V.V.Augustine, Advocate.
O R D E R
(As per Sri R.Rama Chandra Reddy,Member)
CC.No.03/2003
1. This Consumer Dispute case of the complainant is filed under section 2 and 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 seeking a direction towards the Insurance covered under the “Janatha Individual Accidental Insurance Policy” of her late husband Kuruva Nadipi Beesanna who died on 01-09-2000 due to snake bite with 18percent interest per annum, Rs.20,000/- towards compensation, physical and mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards costs.
2. The case of the complainant is that her husband late Kuruva Nadipi Beesanna was the borrowing Member in Kallur Co-Operative Society under General Number 9544, who took the loan from the opposite party No.1 Bank through the said Society. The opposite party No.2 announced a scheme for “JANATHA INDIVIDUAL ACCIDENTAL INSURANCE POLICY”, which would be applied to the persons who have taken the loan from the opposite party No.1 Bank and after taking the loan he become the said policy holder of the opposite party No.2 and when he dies with the accident like snake bite, dog bite, vehicle accident and natural calamities etc., they shall pay the death benefits of Rs.1,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the policy holder. During the subsistence period of the above said policy, Kuruva Nadipi Beesanna died with the snake bite when he went out skirts of the Village for nature calls at about 11.00 A.M. On 02-09-2000 the wife of the deceased i.e., complainant herein gave a complaint before the IV Town, Police Station, Kurnool and the same was got registered in the Crime No.115/2000 Under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C.
3. Before the funerals of the Kuruva Nadipi Beesanna a Panchanama was also held over the dead body of the Kuruva Nadipi Beesanna and also the department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool issued a Certificate that the said Kuruva Nadipi Beesanna died due to snake bite. The complainant insurance of the above said policy claim has took all the necessary original documents mentioned in the accident scheme by the opposite party No.2 and followed the terms and conditions of the said policy, but the opposite party No.2 did not care and care and neglected the representation made by the complainant and evading to make the payment of the said policy amount. Thus the opposite parties 1 and 2 failed in their duties to take the correct measures in setting the claim in the said scheme and his fraudulent act of the opposite party No.2 caused to her, but also to the other similar policy holders. Hence, the opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and vicariously liable to pay the said policy amount to the complainant along with 18percent interest per annum, Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- as costs.
4. The complainant in support of her case encloses to the complaint the documents and they are marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 for their appreciation, the sworn affidavit to the complainant re-iteration the complainant’s case and the above documents.
5. While the opposite party No.1 remind absent without participating, in the proceedings in this case and filing any written version objection statement.
6. The objection statement of the opposite party No.2 besides questioning justness and the maintainability of the complaint in facts and law and the opposite party No.2 rebutted all the contends of the complaint and the sworn affidavit of the complainant and the entire burden is on the complainant to prove that the said Kuruva Nadipi Beesanna and that the deceased was a member of the said society and took loan from that opposite party No.1 Bank by providing a true facts and all the conceivable details by way of the documentary proof and thus the complainant has suppressed the truth and the material facts relating to the death of her husband Kuruva Nadipi Beesanna and the opposite party No.2 also denies that the complainant being the nominee of the deceased submitted the relevant documents immediately after the death of Kuruva Nadipi Beesanna and having received the same that he had been postponing the payment of compensation on some pretext or the other. Further the opposite party No.2 states that the fraudulent claim of the complainant was repudiated as the deceased Kuruva Nadipi Beesanna was not a member of the Society and that his death was not accidental and not due to snake bite, as the report of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory clearly discloses the fact that “No poisonous substance is found”. As such the complaint is not maintainable and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.2 and seeks the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
7. The sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.2 filed on 17-10-2003 not only reiterating the objection statement written version averments, but also states that the Company is liable to pay only to the members, who are covered by the Insurance Policy for the deaths due to accidents only and where as the said Kuruva Nadipi Beesanna was not a member of the opposite party No.1 Bank and the death of the said person was not due to snake bite and as per the FIR filed by the complainant the recitals of it disclose that her husband was suffering with severe stomachache from 2 Years prior to death and also the deceased husband was also suffering from chest pain and used to attend the Government General Hospital, Kurnool and were not cured even though he used very often the medicine for the said ailments. Further it is stated in the FIR that on 01-09-2000 the said Kuruva Nadipi Beesanna complained of severe stomach and chest pain that he was not feeling well and then after went to the fields to answer calls of nature and the complainant further stated in the FIR that they came to know at about 4.30 P.M. that the deceased Kuruva Nadipi Beesanna died in the fields that the complainant very clearly expressed her supplication that her husband would have died either to the severe chest pain or due to bite of a poisonous insect and where as the Department Forensic Medicine, Kurnool dated 02-09-2000 after the Chemical Analysis has opined that no poisonous substance is found and this report coupled with the Fir dis-prove the case of the complainant. But the opposite party No.2 did not file any documentary proof or any cogent material in substantiating his case except relying on the FIR and the Certificate dated 02-09-2000 issued by the Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College which was filed by the complainant in support of her case for their appreciation.
8. Hence, the point for consideration whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for.
9. The Ex.A5 is the original pass book issued by Kallur PACS which reveals that the complainant’s husband is the member in its society who was borrowed the loan from the said Society under the loan No.569 (Page No.22 of the pass book) in the general No.9544. The Ex.A4 is the Death Certificate of the complainant’s husband dated 14-03-2001 issued by the MRO, Kallur. The Ex.A3 is the Xerox copy of the Certificate dated 02-09-2000 issued by the Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool which reveals that no poisonous substance is found and no the perusal of the above document and in the light of the Chemical Analysis Report received with the above said exhibit the said Doctor is of the opinion that the above deceased died due to snake bite. The Ex.A1 Xerox copy of the FIR No.115/2000 dated 02-09-2000 (Kurnool IV Town Police Station, Kurnool) and the Ex.A2 is the Xerox copy of the Inquest Report under the Crime No.115/2000 of the Kurnool IV Town, Police Station. In which it was recorded as informed by the complainant that her husband died may be due to stomach ache or due to poisonous insect. The Ex.A6 is the repudiation Letter of the opposite party No.2 in which the reason for its repudiation was mentioned that as the beneficiary under the said policy is not a member of the said Society and mentioned the loan number in the different ways in the Society.
10. As per the lenor of the objection statement and the sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.2 the cause of repudiating the claim (Ex.A6) was that he beneficiary under the said policy was not a member of the said Society and mentioned loan number in the different ways in the Society and that the death was not accidental and not due to snake bite as alleged in the complaint. The above facts were proved by way of the documents by the complainant who was marked as Ex.A5 and Ex.A3 respectively. Whereas the opposite party No.2 did not adduce any evidence or placed any cogent material to discharge his burden and there is no material to show that the opposite party No.2 did not examine anybody connected with the case or any Doctor of the Government General Hospital, Kurnool to prove his case.
11. When the Insurance Company (opposite party No.2) accept the premium collected from the Society through the opposite party No.1 Bank the later privy to the opposite party No.2 shall be a Consumer and the refusal from the opposite party No.2 to honour the policy of the Insurance Covering the said member of the opposite party No.1 Bank on occurrence of the contingency for the payment of the assured amount, amounts to deficiency of service and thereby makes liable the opposite party No.2 to pay the insured amount to the beneficiary of the said borrowing member on the demise of the said borrowing member. Hence the said repudiation of the claim by the opposite party No.2 appears to be not in accordance with any sound valid reasons and thereby they said conduct of the opposite party No.2 in improper repudiation of the claim made under the above said policy is amounting to deficiency of service.
12. In the sum up of the above discussions and in the light of the above cogent material and the documentary evidence placed by the complainant the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party No.2 to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant towards the Insurance Claim of her husband late Kuruva Nadipi Beesanna has covered under the JANATHA INDIVIDUAL ACCIDENTAL INSURANCE POLICY as the borrowing member of the opposite party No.1 Bank with 9percent interest per annum from the cause of action, compensation of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- as costs within a month of the receipt of this order, in default the opposite party No.2 is liable to pay the above awarded amounts with interest at 12percent per annum from the date of the cause of action till the date of realization.
Dictated to the Stenographer, typed to the dictation, corrected by us, pronounced in the Open Court, this the 30th day of January, 2004.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
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 FIR No.155/2000 dated 02-09-2000 (IV Town Police Station, Kurnool).
Ex.A2 Xerox copy of Inquest Report of under Crime No.115/2000 of Kurnool IV Town Police Station.
Ex.A3 Xerox copy of Certificate dated 02-09-2000 issued by the
Department of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool Medical College,
Kurnool.
Ex.A4 Death Certificate of Kuruva Nadipi Beesanna dated 14-03-2001 issued by M.R.O. Kallur.
Ex.A5 Pass Book of Kuruva Nadipi Beesanna issued by opposite party No.1.
Ex.A6 Letter dated 04-12-2001 addressed by opposite party No.2 to the opposite party No.1.
list of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- Nil
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
