BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : WARANGAL
Present: Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu,
President.
And
Sri N.J. Mohan Rao,
Member
Friday, the 09th day of May, 2008.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 75/2007.
Between:
Maram Swathi, W/o late Madhu @ Mathu,
Age: 22 yrs, Occ: Household,
R/o Papaipet Chaman,
Warangal District.
… Complainant
AND
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Rep. By its Branch Manager,
Branch Office at Narsampet Village & Mandal,
Warangal District.
… Opposite Party
Counsel for the Complainant : Sri. L. Ayodhya Ramaiah, Advocate
Counsel for the Opposite Party : Sri K.S. Raju, Advocate.
ORDER
Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu, President
This is a complaint filed by the complainant M. Swathi against the Opposite party under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- under Policy NO.687577579 and Rs.1,00,000/- under Policy No.681475376 with all benefits and grant damages of Rs.50,000/- for withholding the amount and grant costs.
The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:
The case of the complainant is that she married one Madhu on 4-5-2002. The complainant husband died in an accident when he went to Ayyappa Shabhari Kerala District and he died on 11-01-07. The place of death is Perungarai. The complainant is the legal heir of the deceased i.e., wife as per Hindu Succession Act. During the life time of the complainant’s husband he has taken two policies one is for Rs.50,000/- through Policy No.687577579 dated 28-02-06 of Bheema Gold Policy of Life Insurance corporation of India, Narsampet branch. The complainant’s husband taken another policy No.681475376 dated 28-12-97 for Rs.1,00,000/- of Money Back Policy of Life Insurance Coproation of India Narsampet Branch. For the first policy the nominee is the complainant and for second policy the nominee is the father-in-law of the complainant. After the death of her husband, the complainant approached the Opposite Party and submitted application and also claim forms and further she stated that her husband died, and she also submitted death certificate. She furnished all the documents before the Opposite party, but the Opposite party not granted any policy amounts and dodging the matter. Then she issued legal notice to the opposite party. For the said Legal notice also the Opposite party neither paid the amount nor settled the claim. Then she filed the present complaint before this Forum.
Opposite party filed the Written Version contending in brief as follows:
It is true that the deceased has taken two policies from this Opposite party and it is also true that for the first Policy the complainant is the nominee and for second policy his father is the nominee. There is no cause of action for the complainant to approach this Forum. Hence, the complaint filed by the complainant may be dismissed.
The complainant in support of his claim, filed her Affidavit in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. On behalf of opposite party one V. Bhaskar filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination, but not marked any documents.
Now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for grant of amount of Rs.50,000/- under Policy NO.687577579 and Rs.1,00,000/- under Policy No.681475376 with all benefits and grant damages of Rs.50,000/- for withholding the amount and grant costs.
After arguments of both side counsels, our reasons are like this:
The case of the complainant is that she married one Madhu on 4-5-2002. The complainant husband died in an accident when he went to Ayyappa Shabhari Kerala District and he died on 11-01-07. The place of death is Perungarai. The complainant is the legal heir of the deceased i.e., wife as per Hindu Succession Act. During the life time of the complainant’s husband he has taken two policies one is for Rs.50,000/- through Policy No.687577579 dated 28-02-06 of Bheema Gold Policy of Life Insurance corporation of India, Narsampet branch. The complainant’s husband taken another policy No.681475376 dated 28-12-97 for Rs.1,00,000/- of Money Back Policy of Life Insurance Corporation of India Narsampet Branch. For the first policy the nominee is the complainant and for second policy the nominee is the father-in-law of the complainant. After the death of her husband, the complainant approached the Opposite Party and submitted application and also claim forms and further she stated that her husband died, and she also submitted death certificate. She furnished all the documents before the Opposite party, but the Opposite party not granted any policy amounts and dodging the matter. Then she issued legal notice to the opposite party. For the said Legal notice also the Opposite party neither paid the amount nor settled the claim. Then she filed the present complaint before this Forum.
Opposite party filed the Written Version stating that there are two policies in the first policy Rs.50,000/- through Policy No.687577579 dated 28-02-2006, the complainant is the nominee and another policy No. 681475376 dated 28-12-97 for Rs.1,00,000/-, her father-in-law is the nominee. The Opposite party clearly stated that the nominees in the policy are entitled only to get the amount and further they stated that they are ready to pay the amount whatever the nominee is entitled and at the time of death of the deceased husband, the policies are in force. When the policies are in force certainly the complainant is entitled to get the amount but in this case there are (2) policies. One policy No.is 687577579 dated 28-02-2006, sum assured Rs.50,000/- Plan and Term 174-20 name of the nominee is M. Swathi i.e., the wife of the deceased. The complainant is entitled whatever the amount covered under the Policy No.687577579 only entitled because she is the nominee of the said policy mentioned by the deceased. For Policy No. 681475376 dated 28-12-97 for Rs.1,00,000/- Plan and term 93-25 name of the nominee is M. Laxmaiah father of the deceased. After the death of the deceased the complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.50,000/- because she is the nominee of the said policy. For the said 1,00,000/- the complainant is not entitled to get anything and further she also not entitled go get any damages.
For the foregoing reasons given by us, we direct the Opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- covered under the policy No.687577579 because she is the nominee of the said policy except this policy amount she is not entitled for other policy. Accordingly we answered this point in favour of complainant against Opposite party.
In the result the complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part and the complainant is entitled to get an amount covered under the Policy No.687577579 sum assured Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty Thousand only) from the Opposite party along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e., 9-8-07 till the date of deposit. The Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.500/- (Rs.Five hundred only) towards costs.
A month’s time is granted to the Opposite party for the compliance of the order.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today, the 9th May, 2008).
Sd/- Sd/-
Member President,
District consumer forum, Warangal.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
On behalf of Complainant On behalf of Opposite Party
Affidavit of complainant No.1 filed Affidavit on behalf of O.P. filed.
EXHIBITS MARKED
On behalf of complainant
- Ex.A-1 Postal acknowledgment due.
- Ex.A-2 O/c of legal notice issued to opposite parties,dt.25-1-07.
- Ex.A-3 Death Ceremony of the complainant husband.
- Ex.A-4 Bima Gold Policy.
- Ex.A-5 25 year money back policy with profits.
- Ex.A-6 Death Certificate of the deceased.
- Ex.A-7 Application given to the Police Station written in Tamil.
- Ex.A-8 Telugu Version of Ex.A-7.
On behalf of Opposite party.
NIL
Sd/-
President.
