Before for 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 the 30th day January,2004.
C.D.No.134/2003.
Smt.Y.Sarada Devi,
W/o Late Y.Mallaiah.
C/o E. Veera Narayana,
H.No.1-14.D,
Rythu Nagaram,
Nandyal. . . . Complainant represented by
his counsel J.P. Basava Raj
-Versus-
1). Branch Manager,L.I. C.,
(servicing),Kurnool.
2). Branch Manager,L.I.C.,
(booking),Nandyal.
3). Regional Manager,L.I.C.,
( settlement), Cuddapah.
. . .Opposite parties represented
by their counsel M.L.Sreenivasa Reddy
O R D E R
This complainant is filled under section 12 of C.P .Act seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay her the due policy amount RS.50,000/- with 12% interest per annum and RS.25,000/- towards mental stress, strain and agony.
The facts of the case are that one Mallaya, obtained a Bima Kiran policy bearing No.651589106 and the insured nominated his wife Y.Sharada Devi as his nominee. The insured died on 1.6.98 after paying two premiums i.e for the months of March and April IN 1998. The complainant informed about the death of the insured to the opposite parties and the opposite parties asked to submit claim forms. Then the complainant submitted claims forms as she is the nominee of the insured and there was no response from the opposite parties. There after the complainant made several Phone calls and also addressed two letters dated 23.2.1999 and 14.2.2000 requesting to settle the claim, which were not replied by the opposite parties and the claim of the complainant was repudiated. The conduct of the opposite parties in not paying the policy amount is deficiency of service.
The opposite parties after receiving notice filed objection statement denying the averments of the complaint and admitting the deceased insured his life with the opposite parties along with this policy and Five other policies also and nominated his wife Y.Sarada Devi in all the Six policies. The complainant intimated about the death of her husband on 3.10.1998 an subsequently the complainant sending all required claim forms of policies bearing No.s 651589191, 651588989, 651588055, 651586169, 650024141, 651318713 and 651589103(Policy in Question).
After receiving claim forms of Six Policies the opposite parties settled Five policies except this policy on 12.12.1998 it self and repudiated the said policy through a letter dated 8.5.2000 on the ground that the insured did not disclosed the particulars of previous policies in the proposal forms and also the signature of the insured in the proposal form dated 2.3.1998 is entirely different from the other proposal forms as its evident from signatures from the documents obtain from the employer of the insured. On examination of the documents the opposite parties repudiated the claim. Therefore there is no deficiency of services on part of the opposite parties and hence prayed for the dismissal of the compliant.
The complainant filed original letters addressed to the opposite parties for payment of claim amount dated 23.2,.1999 and 14.2.2000, courier service receipt dated 14.2.2000 and four telephone calls bills and they are marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 for there appreciation in this case. The opposite parties filed Xerox copies of proposal form dated 2.3.1998 policy bond bearing No.651589106, three documents received from the employer of the deceased life assured and repudiation letter dated 8.5.2000 and they are marked as Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4 for their appreciation in this case.
Hence the point for consideration to what relief the complainant is entitled to ?:-
It is the case of the complainant that she is the wife and nominee of the insured Mallaya, who holds a Bima Kiran policy bearing No. 651589106 for Rs.50,000/-. The insured died on 1.6.1998, on the claim preferred by the complainant it was repudiated on the ground that the complainant did not disclosed the previous exiting policies in the proposal form for taking the policy. This plea of the opposite parties cannot be accepted as the statement made in the proposal form that he was not holding any policies does not appear to be worthy of any credit as those policies amount have already been settled and paid to the complainant on the death of the insured, mere not mentioning the previous policies in the proposal form does not support the opposite parties defence and appears to be plea for plea sake adopted by the opposite parties to avoid payment to the complainant.
The other objection of the opposite parties is that the signature of the insured in the proposal form dated 2.3.1998 is entirely different with signatures of the other Five previous proposals, but to that extent no material is brought on record where from it can be inferred that there was really any difference in the signatures of the insured in the present proposal form and in the five previous proposal forms, on the other hand opposite parties referring to Ex.B.3 in objection statement, alleged to have been signed by the complainant and obtained from the employer of the complainant, but no credence can be given to the said document as no supporting material is placed such as the sworn affidavit of the said employee, in support of the said document nor any particulars of the insured are mentioned in the said document, hence no evidence remains placed to prove the said insured Mallaya had signed Ex.B.3.
The opposite parties further cites several rulings in the objection statement, but they are neither referred in any legal journals nor any xerox copies of the text of the said order is filed for their perusal and appreatiation and hence they remain of any relevency for consideration.
In the said circumstances of refusing to pay the insured amount to complainant, the conduct of the opposite party is certainly amounting to deficiency of service and thus entitling the complainant to the policy amount. A careful perusal of documents placed before the forum, will go to show that the repudiation of the claim by the opposite parties under the said policy was not made after due consideration of the fact as the other Five policies on the death of the insured was settled by the opposite parties itself and the said amount was paid to the complainant without entertaining any doubt. Hence the point is held in favour of the complainant.
In the result the compliant is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay the policy amount of RS.50,000/- to the complainant with interest of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the case that is 3.5.2000 till realization, and as opposite parties has driven the complainant to seek redressal in the Forum, RS.1,500/- and RS.2,500/- as cost and compensation respectively and the opposite parties are granted one month time from the date of receipt of this order for compliance.
Pronounced in the Open Court this the 24th day of January, 2003.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER.
