Date of Filing: 10.01.2018
Date of Order: 08.12.2020
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B., PRESIDENT
HON’BLE Sri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B., MEMBER
On this the Tuesday the 08th day of December, 2020
C.C.No. 35 /2018
Between
Sattuluri Srinivasa Rao, S/o Sattuluri Subba Rao,
Aged about years, Occ: Business,
R/o. Flat No. 104, Vijaya Ganapathi Towers,
Amaravathi Veedhi, Cheerala, Prakasham Dist,
Andhra Pradesh – 523 155 presently residing
At C/o. M. Kanaka Rao, Flat No.6, East Sai Nagar,
Allwyn colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad – 72 (Died)
Legal Heirs
2. Sattuluri Siva Rajya Lakshmi,
W/o Late Sattuluri Srinivasa Rao,
Age 39 years, Occ: Housewife,
3. Sattuluri Venkatesh
S/o Late Sattuluri Srinivasa Rao,
Age 19 years, Occ: Student,
B/R of R/o. Flat No. 104,
Vijaya Ganapathi Towers, Amaravathi Veedhi,
Cheerala, Prakasham District ,
Andhra Pradesh – 523 155.
(Note the legal heirs brought on record as per I.A.No 233/2019 dt.17.12.2019)
….Complainants
And
- Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd,
Head office GE Plaza,
Airport Road Yarrawada,
Pune – 411006 Maharshra.
Rep by its legal Head,
- Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co Ltd.
Having its branch office 4th floor,
North – Eastern Plaza opp. RTA office,
Khairtabad, Hyderabad – 4 rep by its
Branch Manager
… Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainants : Mr.M. Ram Gopal Reddy
Counsel for the Opposite parties No.1&2 : Mr. S. Parmod Kumar
O R D E R
(By Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B., PRESIDENT on behalf of the Bench)
1. This Complaint is preferred U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging that deficiency and service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
2. The complainants case in brief is that one Late Ravuri Subbaravamma obtained an Insurance Policy from the opposite parties covering 10 years period commencing from 20.10.2014 and premium payable was a sum of Rs. 30,000/- p.a (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) for 5 (five) years. The maturity date was 19.10.2018 and amount payable and maturity amount was Rs. 2,10,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ten Thousand Only) during the policy period the policy holder Subbaravamma died on 25.08.2016 and same was communicated to the opposite parties and submitted a claim with necessary documents. The complainant name was mentioned as nominee of the policy holder on whose death the amount is payable to him. The complainant is none other than the Son of Sister of policy holder Subbaravamma.
4. On receipt of the claim the opposite parties rejected it on 29.12.2016 on the ground that succession certificate from a court of law on the estates of life of assured was not submitted the rejection of the claim is contrary to the provisions of section 39 of Insurance Act under which the amount is payable to the nominee on maturity in case of death of the policy holder during the subsistence of policy. After rejection of the claim by the opposite parties the complainant got issued a legal notice on 01.12.2017 to the opposite calling upon them to settle the claim and pay the amount. The opposite parties having received the notice neither gave a reply nor settled the claim.
5. Non-settlement of the claim and non-payment of amount to the complainant who is nominee of the original policy holder amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Hence the present complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to pay the claim amount of Rs.2,10,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ten Thousand Only) to the complainant with interest @ 24% p.a from the date of demise of the original policy holder Subbaravamma and to award a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) for causing mental agony to the complainant by not settling the claim and further direction to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards costs of this complaint.
6. The opposite parties in the written version while admitting issuance of an Insurance Policy in the name of Late Subbaravamma for assured amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ten Thousand Only) denied the allegation of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on their part. The contest of the opposite parties in the written version is that Late Subbaravamma took the policy for the assured amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ten Thousand Only) with a premium of Rs 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand’s Only) for 5(five) years commencing from 20.10.2014 and maturity date is 19.10.2024. The opposite parties had received death intimation and claim documents from the complainant and after verification of the same a letter was addressed to him on 27.12.2016 to settled the claim, the complainant is required to obtain a succession certificate from the court of law on the estate of life assured. There was no rejection of the claim as alleged by the complainant. Hence the question of either deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties dose not arise. As there is no repudation of the claim the present complaint is not maintainable. The complainant failed to obtain and file a succession certificate from a competent court of law on a estate of life of assured hence could not to settle the claim in his favour. The present complaint is pre-matured in nature and deserved to be dismissed.
7. In the enquiry complainant has got filed his evidence affidavit reiterating the material averments of the complaint and to support the same got exhibited 13 documents. For the opposite parties there is no evidence either oral or documentary. On consideration of the material brought on the record the following points have emerged for determination.
- Whether the complainant has made out a case of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the claims made .?
- To what relief.?
Point No.1:-
In view of the admission of the issuance of the policy in the name of Late Subbaravamma and her death during the subsistence policy and receiving of a claim from the complainant as nominee of the original policy holder a further enquiry is needed on this aspect. As could be seen from Ex.A7 letter written by the opposite parties to the complainant the death benefit of the deceased policy holder was admitted and in order to process they require a succession certificate from court of law on the estate of the deceased policy holder. It is further mentioned in this document that non-compliance of requirement of a succession certificate will effect release of the claim benefit. As rightly pointed out for the complainant U/s 39 of Insurance Act the policy holder is required to nominate somebody to receive the policy amount in case of death of the policy holder during the policy period and it will facilitate the nominee so named to receive the death benefits under the policy. It further says the persons named as nominee shall be paid the claim in the event of death of the policy holder. Neither the terms and conditions of the policy nor Section 39 of insurance Act 1938 contemplate to secure a succession certificate on the estate of the deceased policy holder for settling the claim. It is pertinent to bear in mind that the nominee receives money in case of death of policy holder as a trustee for the benefit of legal heirs who are actual entitled for the same. It is not the case of the opposite parties that apart from the complainant a third party also submitted a claim for settlement of the amount payable under the subject policy so as to insist upon the complainant to produce a succession certificate from the competent court of law on the estate of the deceased. Hence insisting the complainant to produce a succession certificate for statement of claim in his favour is out of the scope of terms of the policy contract as well as the provisions of Section 39 of Insurance Act 1938.
As could seen from the record the opposite parties have field a memo before this Commission on 13.02.2020 stating that the company has decided to settle the matter by depositing maturity amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ten Thousand Only) before this Commission and on such deposit the Commission can release it in favour of the complainant who is entitled for it and then dismiss the complaint. So the opposite parties have acknowledged the right of the complainant to receive the assured amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ten Thousand Only) being a nominee of the original policy holder bet for the reasons best known for them earlier insisted to produce a succession certificate and it amount to not only deficiency of service but unfair trade practice. Leave it apart the opposite parties having filed a above mentioned memo on 13.02.2020 have not depositing a single pie even as to day, for the reasons best known to them. So it is evident from the record that the opposite parties have caused deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Accordingly point is answered in favour of the complainant.
Point No.2
In view of the finding of this Commission to the point No.1 the complainant is entitled part of reliefs prayed for.
Point No.3
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The opposite parties are directed to pay assured amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ten Thousand Only) with interest their @12% p.a from the date of death of original policy holder i.e, 28.05.2016 to the date of payment . The opposite parties are further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) as compensation for causing inconvenience and mental agony by not-settling the claim. Opposite party are further directed to pay a further sum of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) towards cost of this complaint.
Time for compliance of 45 days from the date of service of this order.
Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by him, pronounced by us on this 08th the day of December, 2020.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
NIL
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1– Copy of Policy details - dt. 24.10.2014
Ex.A2 – Copy of Policy dt. 24.10.2014
Ex.A3 - Copy of First Premium receipt dt. 24.10.2014
Ex.A4 – Copy of Discharge summary-dt. 28.07.2016
Ex.A5- Copy of Death certificate dt.19.09.2016
Ex.A6- Copy of Deceased Aadhar card.
Ex.A7- Copy of Death claim Policy dt.27.12.2016
Ex.A8- Copy of Deceased Aadhar card for complainant.
Ex.A9- Copy of Legal notice dt.01.12.2017
Ex.A10- Copy of Postal Acknowledgment receipt dt 01.12.2017
Ex.A11- Copy of Reply notice dt.02.02.2018
Ex.A12- Copy of Aadhar card
Ex.A13- Copy of FIR( First Information Report) dt.04.02.2019.
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Opposite parties:
Nil.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
