BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt.C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member
Thursday the 7th day of December, 2006
C.C. No.94/2006
Smt.S.Vimala,
W/O. Late. S.Krupakar,
H.NO.26-99 A,
Gnana Puram,
KURNOOL, Kurnool District. …Complainant
-Vs-
1. Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation Of India Ltd.,
Nandyal, Kurnool District.
2. Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation Of India Ltd.,
Banaganapalli, Kurnool District.
3. Divisional Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation Of India Ltd.,
P.B. NO. 10, College Road,
CUDDAPAH-516004. …Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. P. Sivasudarshan, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant, Sri. G.MD. Habeebur Rahiman, Advocate, Kurnool for Opposite Parties No.1,2,&3 and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
As per Smt. C. Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member
1. This consumer dispute of the complainant is filed U/S 11,&12 of C.P. Act, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay policy amounts of Rs.50,000/-under policy No.651616062, Rs.20,000/- on policy No.651616098, Rs.25,000/- on policy No.651591662 and Rs.25,000/- on policy No.651615853/-, with 24% interest per annum from the date of death i.e., 25-04-2002, till realization, Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the complainant 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 husband S.Krupakar insured his life with opposite parties under policy bearing numbers 651591662, for Rs.25,000/-, 651616062 for Rs.50,000/-, 651616098, for Rs.20,000/- and 651615853 for Rs.25,000/-. The policy holder S.Krupakar died on 24-05-2002 due to chest pain and the death is a naturally one. Thereafter, the complainant submitted claim form as nominee to opposite parties,but the opposite parties did not pay that policy amount inspite of several representations. On 20-03-2003 the opposite party No.3, repudiated the complainant’s claim as the policy holder with held correct information regarding his health. But, complainant submits that the policy holder never suffered with any ailment such as diabetes or hypertension and there is no connection with alleged deceased and the opposite parties without any reasonable reason repudiated the claim of the complainant. The above said lapsive conduct of opposite parties constrained the complainant to resort to the forum with redressal.
3. In support of her case the complainant relied on the following document viz.,1)death certificate issued by Kurnool Municipality, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of her complainant averments and the above document is marked as Ex.A1 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant caused interrogatories to the opposite parties and suitablely replied to the interrogatories filed by the opposite parties.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties 1to3 appeared before this forum and opposite party No.3 filed his written version opposite party 1,&2 adopted the written version of opposite party No.3.
5. The written version of opposite parties admits the deceased S.Krupakar obtained policies for Rs.25,000/- bearing policy No.651591662, Rs.25,000/- bearing policy No.651615853, Rs.20,000/- bearing policy No.651616098, and Rs.50,000/- bearing policy No.651616062. The policy holder nominated the complainant as the nominee in all the policies. The nominee intimated the death of the policy holder on 24-05-2002 due to chest pain. As the claim aroused within a short time investigation was conducted which revealed that the policy holder was actually unwell prior to the date of above said policies and was a Chronic Smoker and known diabetic & hypertension for past five years and was admitted in Govt. General Hospital, Kurnool under I.P.No.34434 and the policy holder visited the hospital frequently till his death. The policy holder was admitted in the hospital with acute Palpitation, Breathlessness and died on 24-05-2002. The complainant has given an affidavit dated 15-07-2002 attested by T.Madhava Reddy, Advocate, which shows that the policy holder died on 24-05-2002 at Govt., General Hospital, Kurnool. The policy holder has not disclosed the above details of his sickness prior to the date of proposals and answered questions in 11 (a) to (i) negatively stating his state of health as good. As the policy holder gave un true statements of his health in question No.11, the contract was declared null and void and repudiated the claims under the above policies by the speaking order dated:20-03-2003. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite parties and seeks for the dismissal of complainant with costs.
6. In substantiation of their case the opposite parties relied on following documents viz.,1)certificate of hospital treatment issued by Dr.P.Chandra Sekhar.2)policy bond bearing No.651511662 dt:07-06-00 along with proposal 3)policy bond bearing No.651615853 dt:08-12-01 along with proposal 4)policy bond bearing No.651616098 dt:28-03-02 along with proposal 5)policy bond bearing No.651616062 dt:28-03-02 along with proposal 6)notarized affidavit of the complainant dt:15-07-02 and 7)office copy of repudiation letter dt:20-03-03, besides to the sworn affidavit of opposite party No.3 in reiteration of his written version and above documents are marked as Ex.B1 to B7. The complainant caused interrogatories to opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.3 replied to the interrogatories caused by the complainant. The opposite parties relied on the deposition of R.W.1 Dr.P.Chandra Sekhar.
7. Hence the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency service on opposite parties:?
8. The written version and verified affidavit was filed by one Palem Rajanna for Senior, Divisional Manager, L.I.C. of India, Kadapa, without any authorization in his favour nor there is any valid vakalath to G.Md.Habeebur Rahiman, Advocate to represent Palem Rajanna, as the vakalath is not possessing signature of Palem Rajanna in token of its execution. Hence, the opposite party No.1 is remaining not represented in the case of the complainant either through himself or through any of his authorized agent. In the absence of any authorization in favour of Rajanna, the other opposite parties 1&2, did not file any of their written version except mere adopting the unauthorized written version filed by Palem Rajanna, which cannot be taken in to account as a valid pleadings on opposite party’s side. In the circumstances as per the decision of Supreme Court in R.D. Nagpal V/s. Vijaya Dutt and another reported in 2006, C.T.J. page 1075, it was held authorization to represent a party should be in writing. In this case there is no valid representation for opposite party No.3 and any validity for the pleadings filed by Palem Rajanna and its adopting by the other opposite parties 1&2. Hence, in the above circumstances, there being no valid representation of opposite parties with any validity pleadings and thereby continuous said conduct the case of the complainant is remaining un rebutted.
9. The complainant in support of his case relied on Ex.A1 death certificate of the policy holder. The complainant alleges that her husband has taken four policies for Rs.25,000/-,Rs.25,000/-,Rs.20,000/-Rs.50,000/-, respectively on his life from opposite parties and her husband died on 24.05.02 and claims for said policy amounts was placed before the opposite parties for settlement but the opposite parties did not settle the said policies and repudiated the same vide letter dated:20-03-03, stating that her husband suppressed material information regarding his health, but the complainant’s submits that her husband never suffered from any decease as stated in the repudiation letter. Hence, in the circumstances discussed above the burden is upon the opposite parties to show that there is suppressing of material facts, the opposite parties in this case are not represented properly as per the provisions of law and have filed an unauthorized written version which cannot be taken into consideration therefore the documents filed by opposite parties also cannot be taken into consideration. Hence the alleged suppression is not proved by opposite parties by placing any supporting material. Therefore, what follows is that there is no suppression of material information by the policy holder. Hence, the repudiation by opposite parties is arbitrary, untenable& unreasonable.
10. Having regard to over all consideration there is no hesitation to hold that the opposite parties miserablely failed to substantiate their case. Therefore in the above said circumstances the repudiation by opposite parties is wholly arbitrary and unjust and amounts to deficiency of service.
11. Therefore, the complainant is perfectly remaining entitle to the policy amounts under the above said policies.
12. In the result, the complaint is allowed the directing the opposite parties 1,2,&3 jointly and severally to pay to the complainant Rs.50,000/-, under policy No.651616062, Rs.20,000/-, on policy No.651616098, Rs.25,000/-,on policy No.651591662 and Rs.25,000/-, on policy No.651615853/-, with 9% interest from the date of filling of this case i.e., 07.03.05 till realization along with Rs.5,000/- as costs within a month of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench on this the 7th ay of December, 2006.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the Complainants: Nil For the Opposite Parties: Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Death certificate (Original policy & office copy of repudiation is filed
by opposite party No.1.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.Rw1 Deposition of Rw1, Dt:06-10-06 (Dr. P.Chandrasekhar).
Ex.B1 certificate of hospital treatment of said patient issued by opposite
party (Marked in R.W1 evidence) proposal form (No.B1) for obtaining
policy signed by policy holder Dt:25-05-2000.
Ex.B2 Original policy bond of the policy holder No.651591662 along with
proposal. Dt:07-06-2000.
Ex.B3 original policy bond of the policy holder No.651615853 Dt:28-12-
01 along with proposal signed by the policy holder.
Ex.B4 original policy bond of the policy holder No.651616098, Dt:28-03-
02 along with proposal.
Ex.B5 original policy bond of the policy holder No.651616062, Dt:28-03-02
along with proposal.
Ex.B6 Notarized affidavit Dt:15-07-02 of the complainant.
Ex.B7 office copy of the repudiation letter, Dt:20-03-2003.
Ex.X1 case sheet of the policy holder.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:
1. Sri. P. Sivasudarshan, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri. G.MD. Habeerbur Rahiman, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
