BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986) MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
Present : Smt Meena Ramanathan, B.Com.,
President(FAC)/Senior Member
Sri. G. Sreenivas Rao, M.Sc.,B.Ed.LL.B., PGADR (NALSAR)
Male Member
Wednesday, the 15th day of September 2010
C.C. No. 16 of 2010
Between:
Syed Noor Ahmed S/o Syed Mehboob,
aged 65 years, Occupation: Pensioner,
R/o 11-4-615/A, Mythri Apartments,
Bazarghat, A.C. Guards Road, Hyderabad.
Complainant
And
1. Branch Manager, National Insurance,
B.O: NH-9, Susheeram Complex,
Patancheru, Medak district.
2. The Regional Manager, National Insurance
Co., Ltd., Abids, Nampally, Station Road,
Hyderabad – 500 004 (AP).
Opposite parties
This case came up for final hearing before us on 13-09-2010 in the presence of Complainant-in-person and Sri Ch. Prakash, Advocate for the Opposite parties No. 1 and 2, upon hearing arguments of both sides, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
(Per Smt Meena Ramanathan, President(FAC)/Senior Member)
This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 6,00,000/- and settle the death claim of the life assured and to pay the same to the complainant and interest from 24.08.2000 till realization @ 36% p.a., Rs. 1,50,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and for defective service and Rs.5,000/-towards costs of the case.
1. The Complainant alleging that his wife Smt.Arifunissa Begum working as Government Teacher at Government Girls High School, Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar district took personal accident policy with the opposite parties bearing policy No.551602/42/8100054/2000 dated 14-7-2000 for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- paying the premium of Rs.302/- which was valid during the period 14-07-2000 to 13-07-2001 wherein the name of complainant is shown as nominee.
It is further alleged that his wife unfortunately met with an accident on 6-8-2000 and she was admitted in Government Hospital and to that extent, the Police Jinnaram registered a case in Cr.No.83/ 2000 under section 337 IPC and later altered the section of law to 304-A IPC on the death of the deceased. On false information, once again the section was altered from 304-A to 302, 201 IPC. Some family members of the deceased influenced the Police to register this case against the complainant. On that S.C.No.178/2004 was registered against the complainant on the file of III-Additional District and Sessions Court, Medak under section 302 and 201 IPC which was disposed on 29-10-2004 holding that the complainant is acquitted of the charges. Against the said orders, the Government preferred an appeal on the file of Honourable High Court bearing Criminal Appeal No.59/2006 and the same was dismissed on 13-6-2008 and acquitted the complainant of charges framed against him.
Complainant being nominee informed the death of life assured through a letter dated 24-8-2-2000 and sent it through registered post acknowledgement which the OP No.1 acknowledged but never cared to pay the claim amount nor gave any response, with a request to settle the claim at the earliest. That the complainant visited the branch office at Patancheru and Regional office at Hyderabad several times but there was no proper response. Added to it, he also made several phone calls but no response was given to him and the claim remained unpaid till this day. The Branch Manager, Patancheru sent a letter dated 12-3-2010 received on 18-3-2010 stating that “on verification of the above documents, it is observed that there is an inordinate delay of more than nine years in submission of claim, so unable to consider the matter”. The complainant got issued a notice to the opposite parties which they acknowledged but failed to comply with it. Having no other go, complainant approached this Forum for redressal of his grievance. As such, filed the present complaint with a prayer to direct the Opposite parties to pay Rs.6,00,000/- towards death claim of the life assured along with interest @ 36% p.a. from 24-8-2000 till realization; to pay Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards advocate fee and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
2. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 resisted by the claim of the complainant by filing a counter to the following effect:
The Opposite party No.1 filed counter and the same is adopted by Opposite party No.2 through a memo. This opposite party admitted the taking of personal accident policy bearing No.551602/42/8100054/ 2000 dated 14-7-2000 for Rs.6,00,000/- with it on the name of Complainant’s wife and complainant being its nominee. It denied that the wife of complainant met with accident on 6-8-2000 but admitted the registration of crime by Police, Jinnaram against complainant. It also denied the alteration of section of law at the influence of family members of deceased. It is unaware of criminal cases filed against the complainant and the results thereof. The intimation of death by registered post is admitted. It also denied as to the visit of complainant to the office of Ops and making of phone calls. This opposite party gave reply to complainant even before the legal notice. It denied any deficiency of serviceor delay on its part.
It is further contended that the complainant was a Retired Circle Inspector in Police Department. On enquiry, it came to light that the deceased Arifunnissa Begum was 2nd wife of complainant and both of them were divorced and she was residing separately from 1982 and complainant married another woman Yavarunnissa Begum and on the fateful day the deceased was called by complainant himself and killed her upon which a case is registered against him by the police under Sections 302 and 201 IPC under PRC 4/2001. Complainant mentioned only the results of the cases but not the other things. Admittedly, both complainant and deceased are living separately and complainant also married another woman by the date of the policy. Further, it is out of place to mention that complainant himself took several policies from all the insurance companies including this opposite party for a total sum of Rs.1,20,00,000/- and except two policies, all the policies were taken in the year 2000. The opposite party furnished the details of various policies obtained by complainant in the name of the deceased.
The policies are Janatha Personal Accident policies and Personal Accident policies. The insurance itself is run on good faith and proposer has to declare at the time of proposal the details of other policies and further as per the policy, one can take only one personal accident insurance policy. Claims are not payable under more than one policy. Further, basing on information in the proposal form, the company may issue or refuse to issue policy. However, in the instant case, there is no declaration by the complainant or by the deceased about the issuance of policies by other companies and other branches. Thus, there is suppression of material facts and as such, complainant is not entitled to receive any benefit under the subject policy.
It is further contended that since the police registered a case of forgery against complainant, it is clear that the complainant himself took personal accident policies in the name of his 2nd wife by forging her signature and subsequently killed her and got the criminal cases acquitted basing on the failure of prosecution and he being a police officer and now after lapse of 9 years issued notice and got filed the present complaint as if he took only one policy. The cause of action for claiming the claim arose on 6-8-2000 on the death of deceased and started on 24-8-2000 when the OP No.1 received the same and kept quiet without settling the same. The present complaint is filed in the month of March 2010 i.e., after nine years. As per the provisions of C.P. Act, the limitation for filing the complaint is two years which is expired in 2002 itself. Thus, the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed in limine.
It is further alleged that in this matter various policies from various branches and of various companies were involved and various documents have to be looked into and some of the documents have to be sent to an expert for their opinion comparing with that of signature of the deceased Arifunnisa Begum and personal examination of witnesses is required, the matter requires specific attention and recording evidence and marking documents and getting expert opinion and all these things are not possible before the Consumer Forum and the matter has to be returned for filing before the Civil Court. As the claim of complainant is for Rs.6,00,000/- with interest @ 36% from 24-8-2000, which comes to Rs.25,00,000/- and above, the same is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum. Mere obtaining of the policy from the opposite parties in the name of insured does not entitle the complainant to claim policy benefits as the insurance contracts are based on the principle of utmost good faith and as complainant acted in breach of the same, the contract became void.
It is further stated that criminal court while passing the judgment, in para No.46, had observed that the result of criminal case shall be no impact, influence, reference and bearing on other cases, if any, pending against the accused (complainant) in connection with the insurance policies in any court or courts. The criminal case is disposed against the complainant on 29-10-2004 and after that also the complainant did not make any demand nor filed any suit or proceeding against the opposite party claiming the money. The deceased was a teacher and she is not entitled for such a huge sum of Rs.1.20 crores and no company will give policies for that amount. It further contended that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction. Hence, prayed to decide the limitation as well as territorial jurisdiction and recording of evidences oral and documentary and other aspects as preliminary issues before proceeding further in the matter.
3. Complainant let evidence in the form of his affidavit reiterating the facts stated in his complaint and got exhibited Exs.A1 to A12 documents. Whereas the Opposite parties filed the affidavit of one T.Bhimeswara Rao and got exhibited B1 to B6 documents. Both the parties filed their written arguments. Arguments of both sides heard, Perused the record.
4. The point for consideration is 1) whether the Complainant is entitled for the claim as stated in the complaint? 2) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in settling the claim? And if so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?
5. Ex.A1 is Photostat copy of policy schedule along with terms and conditions. Ex.A2 is the carbon copy of representation dated 24-8-2000 addressed to OP No.1. Ex.A3 is original postal acknowledgement dated 29-8-2000 acknowledged by OP No.1. Ex.A4 is the office copy of notice dated 19-03-2010. Ex.A5 are two postal acknowledgements of Opposite parties. Ex.A6 is office copy of representation dated 28-1-2010. Ex.A7 is the letter dated 12-03-2010 addressed by Ops Company to complainant expressing their inability to consider the claim in view of inordinate delay of more than nine years in submission of claim. Ex.A8 is the Photostat copy of the Judgment in S.C.No.178/2002 on the file of III-Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Medak. Ex.A9 is the receipt towards payment of premium for Rs.302/- dated 13-07-2000. Ex.A10 is FIR. Ex.A11 is Postmortem Report and Ex.A12 is inquest Panchanama Report.
6. Ex.B1 is office copy of Investigation Report. Ex.B2 is office copy of list showing the details of policies stated to have been obtained by the complainant in the name of Arifunnissa Begum. Ex.B3 is bunch of Photostat copies of various policies obtained on the name of Arifunnisa Begum with the Opposite parties Company. Ex.B4 are the Photostat copies of various policies obtained on the name of Arifunnisa Begum with United India Insurance Company. Ex.B5 are Photostat copies of Janata Personal Accident Policy issued by United India Insurance Co., on the name of Arifunnisa Begum and carbon copies of policies issued by various Insurance companies. Ex.B6 are the Photostat copies of the policies issued by National Insurance Company on the name of Arifunnisa Begum and the paper clippings.
It is not in dispute as regards to the date of death of the deceased and also intimation of fact of death of the deceased policyholder to the opposite parties. Issuing of policy by the opposite parties is also not in dispute. The dispute is that the complainant himself killed the deceased and that the cause of death of deceased is not an accident. Further, the complainant obtained various policies with malafide intention to gain monies illegally. To prove the same, nothing is brought on record by the opposite parties for the reasons best known to them. Except filing the Photostat copies of the various policies they have been obtained by complainant on the name of Arifunnissa Begum, the opposite parties did not choose to take steps nor it contended that the signatures found on the proposal forms of the policy under dispute are not that of the policy holder and that they are forged one. Admittedly, the deceased was working as a Government Teacher and must be drawing salary from the place of work. Certainly, there would be some record in the office where the deceased works with her signatures and the opposite parties had plenty of opportunity to disprove the contention of complainant, which is lacking in the instant case. Admittedly, the complainant informed the fact of death to the opposite parties as long back in the year 2000 itself which is not in dispute. Admittedly, the opposite party gave reply to complainant on 7-9-2000 stating that they suspect some more of its offices may report existence of the policy. As and when details are received, the same would be sent to complainant. Why the opposite parties kept quiet for all these long years without replying to complainant is a matter of great concern. It speaks volumes of the laches on the part of the opposite parties in not settling the claim. There was ample and abnormal time for the opposite parties to respond to the claim petition of the complainant but that was not done in the instant case. Merely because the complaint is not filed within the period of two years from the date of cause of action will not oust the right of complainant until and unless the result and action of the claim petition is communicated to the claimant. It is not the case of the opposite parties that the claim of the complainant was repudiated on certain ground. Even as on today, the claim of the complainant is not repudiated by the opposite parties for the reasons best known. No document is filed in that aspect. All the time, the opposite parties are harping on that the complainant took various policies from various Insurance Companies and stating so it cannot make the claimant keep quiet for abnormal period of time without answering the claim. The opposite parties cannot justify its own action by not answering the claim of the claimant. Whatever the case may be, the opposite parties failed to convey the action taken as against the claim of complainant. The cause of action in the instant case is a continuing cause of action and it concludes immediately after communication of the result of action. The complaint has to be filed from the date of last cause of action. Surprisingly, the opposite parties failed to inform the result on the claim of complainant even after lapse of almost a decade which shows the gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite parties simply cannot wash its hands by saying that the complaint is barred by limitation in view of the fact that the application for settlement of claim of the complainant is still kept pending. The complainant is not communicated of his claim as to the entitlement or non-entitlement, by the opposite parties even as on today.
Admittedly, the criminal charges against the accused are acquitted by the Sessions Court and the Honourable High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, which can be evident from the document exhibited as A8. And that might be the reason the complainant kept quiet all these days not demanding the monies covered by the policy. When there is no evidence on record that the complainant is the perpetrator of the crime, nothing can be fastened against him and an inference has to be drawn that the death of the deceased is an accidental death. The onus lies on the opposite parties to prove that the cause of death is not an accidental one.
The opposite parties did not choose to file any document to disprove the claim of Complainant. Even the opposite parties did not oppose the documents got exhibited by complainant as A1 to A9. A perusal of Ex.A8 show that as much as (18) witnesses are examined; (21) documents are exhibited and (2) material objects are marked to bring home the guilt of the accused in S.C.No.178/2002 but the prosecution failed to materialize in bringing the guilt of the accused. It is not in dispute that the complainant did not furnish the copies of FIR, PME and Inquest report to the opposite parties. A perusal of the Exs A10 to A12 of the deceased disclose that the deceased died accidentally. And there is no rebuttal brought on record by the opposite parties to disprove the same.
The complainant had to wait for long stretch of time to seek his legitimate benefits and due to the laches on the part of opposite parties the complainant should not suffer. There is no record to show that the cause of death of the deceased is not an accidental one. And in these circumstances, there is no other way except to accept the claim of the complainant. In any view of the matter, the complainant is legally entitled for the policy benefit and accordingly we allow the claim at Rs.6,00,000/-. Admittedly, the complainant is a retired Police Officer and is well acquainted of the legal procedure. He is not a layman but instead a law knowing man. Certainly, he ought to have reminded the opposite parties and pressed them for release of policy benefit. Except the vague and bald allegation that he made several telephonic calls, nothing is brought on record to show that he pursued the claim with the opposite parties. There are laches on the part of both parties. Hence, we feel it justified in granting interest on the assured sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the date of complaint which would meet the ends of justice.
Merely because the opposite parties have filed various copies of policies stated to have been obtained by the complainant on the name of Arifunnisa Begum, the policy amount covered by the complaint cannot be discarded to. Nothing is produced by the opposite parties to show that the complainant is not entitled for policy amount more than one. No provision is shown or no copy of statute is filed to show that only one claim can be granted to the claimant in case there are two policies or more than two policies. The policies were issued by the opposite parties – how can they be so careless?
7. In the result the complaint is allowed and direct the opposite parties to pay the accidental benefit of Rs.6,00,000/- (covered by the policy in dispute) together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint i.e., 12-4-2010 onwards till realization and further grant compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the ordeals undergone by complainant and on account of deficient services rendered by opposite parties and causing inconvenience to complainant along with costs of Rs.1,000/- towards the complaint. Time for compliance : one month.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this 15th day of September, 2010
Sd/- Sd/-
President (FAC)/Senior Member Male Member
