Kerala

Wayanad

CC/10/93

Sunilkumar, S/O Sivarajan,Sunilnivas,Vettuvady,Konnachal,Erumad,Tamilnadu. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,LIC of India,Sulthan Bathery. - Opp.Party(s)

30 Aug 2010

ORDER


Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, WayanadConsumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Wayanad
Complaint Case No. CC/10/93
1. Sunilkumar, S/O Sivarajan,Sunilnivas,Vettuvady,Konnachal,Erumad,Tamilnadu. ...........Appellant(s)

Versus.
1. Branch Manager,LIC of India,Sulthan Bathery. ...........Respondent(s)



BEFORE:
HONORABLE MR. K GHEEVARGHESE ,PRESIDENTHONORABLE MRS. SAJI MATHEW ,MemberHONORABLE MR. P Raveendran ,Member
PRESENT :

Dated : 30 Aug 2010
JUDGEMENT

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:


 

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.


 

The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant is the nominee of the deceased policy holder of the Opposite party. The premium of the policy Rs.3,341/- of the policy sum of Rs.50,000/- was remitted. The insured commit suicide on 30.07.2009 and the policy was taken on 20.12.2008. The nominee of the policy holder was not given the benefit of the policy by the Opposite Party which is absolutely a deficiency in service. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to give the Complainant, the nominee, of the insured Rs. 50,000/- along with other benefits with an interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing this complaint along with cost of Rs.5,000/-.


 

2. The Opposite Party filed version in short it is as follows:- The inception of the insurer to the policy of Rs.50,000/- is admitted. The policy commences from 20.11.2008 under endowment plan for 16 years. The premium to be paid was Rs.3,416/-. After the remittance of the first premium the insured commit suicide. The Policy conditions exemplifies that the insured if suicide within one year from the date of commencement of the policy, is not entitled for the benefit of the scheme. The Opposite Party is unable to consider the claim of the Complainant. There no deficit in service on the part of the Opposite Party in unconsidering the claim of the Complainant the complaint is to be dismissed with cost.


 

3. Points in consideration are:-

      1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party?

      2. Relief and cost.


 

4. Point No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of proof affidavit of Complainant and Opposite Party, Ext.A1, A2 and B1 are the documents produced in this case.


 

5. The allegation is with respect to non acceptance of the claim request by the nominee of the deceased insured. Ext.B1 is the clause 6 of the condition and privilege of policy scheme, the clause 6 is laid down below “ the policy shall be void if the Life Assured commits Suicide (whether sance or insane at the time) at any time on or after the date on which the risk under the Policy has commenced but before expiry of one year from the date of commencement of risk under the Policy viz and the Corporation will not entertain any claim by virtue of this Policy except to the extent of a third party bonafide beneficial interest acquired in the policy for valuable consideration of which notice has been given in writing to the office to which premiums under this policy where paid last, at least one calendar month prior to death”. The suicide of the insured was within one year from the inception to the policy. Whereas under this circumstances the benefit of the policy is an exclusion to the risk of suicide. The rejection of the claim of the Complainant by the Opposite Party cannot be considered a deficiency in service.


 

In the result the complaint is dismissed, no order as to cost.


 


 

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30th August 2010.


 

Date of filing: 20.04.2010.


 

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-


 

A P P E N D I X

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1. Sunil Kumar. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Party:

Nil.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Policy Certificate. dt:20.11.2008.

A2. Copy of Death Certificate.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:

B1. The clause 6 of the condition and privilege of policy scheme.


[HONORABLE MRS. SAJI MATHEW] Member[HONORABLE MR. K GHEEVARGHESE] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE MR. P Raveendran] Member