IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 184/10 DATED 08.07.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Smt. Lakshmi W/o late M. Ravikumar, D.No.87, Siddivinayaka Block, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Teachers Layout, Mysore.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. G.R., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party 1. The Branch Manager, Canara HSBC Life Insurance, Canara Bank, Nazarabad Mohalla, Mysore.<br /> 2. The Branch Manager, Canara HSBC Life Insurance, Canara Bank, No.971/1, Ward No.5, Mysore Road, Yalandoor, Chamarajanagara District. <br /> (By Sri. J.M.A., Advocate for O.P.1, O.P.2 is Exparte)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 10.05.2010<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 07.06.2010<br /> Date of order : 08.07.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 Month 1 day<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in Insurance service and has claimed the all benefits that she is entitled to on account of death of her husband, under policy NO.2000127526 dated 05.12.2009, with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of the proceedings.<br /> <br /> 2. The opposite party in the version, firstly, has contended that the complainant is nothing to do with the policy and even she has no power of attorney or other document to claim the amount on behalf of the father of the deceased who was proposer and secondly, it is contended that, the proposal was returned to rectify certain mistakes, but it returned undelivered and latter reminder was issued, which also returned and thereafter the proposal was cancelled and the amount of Rs.25,000/-, towards initial premium was returned but returned undelivered.<br /> <br /> 3. The complainant has filed her affidavit in support of her claim where as the Manager, legal, for the opposite parties has filed his affidavit. Certain documents are produced. <br /> <br /> 4. When the matter was posted for arguments, filing father of the deceased i.e., father-in-law of the complainant has filed an application for impleading his as the second complainant. In the affidavit accompanying the application, it is stated that he was the proposer and had issued the Demand Draft in favour of the opposite party, towards the initial premium and in view of the contention, now taken by the opposite party, he may be impleaded as one of the complainants. Opposite parties filed objection and have contended that to remove the defect, at this stage application is filed and it is not maintainable.<br /> <br /> 5. With consent, we have heard the arguments on the main complaint as well as the interim application. We have perused the entire records.<br /> <br /> 6. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and that she is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 7. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Partly in affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 8. Point No.1:- So for concerned to the interim application filed by the father of the deceased insured, who is also the father-in-law of the present complainant, amongst other facts he has stated that, he has no objections and he consent to get all benefits from the opposite parties by the complainant. That was one of the contentions of the opposite parties in the version. Hence, to avoid technicalities and the delay in proceedings we found it just to consider the said application as consent for the complainant to get the benefit, whatever the complainant is entitled to. Otherwise, either the application allowed or dismissed, certainly there will be multiplicity of proceedings resulting in convenience to both the parties.<br /> <br /> 9. In the complaint, the complainant has claimed that, she is nominee under the policy in question. That is denied by the opposite parties. To prove that the complainant is nominee, there is no cogent evidence. On the other hand, father of the deceased was the proposer and the proposal was sent to the opposite parties along with initial premium of Rs.25,000/-. Considering the documents on record, prima-facie, it is made out by the opposite parties that, certain clarification was sought from the insured/proposer, but the same was returned undelivered, may be because of the death of the deceased/insured. Thereafter, the opposite party cancelled the proposal itself and returned the initial premium of Rs.25,000/- through a cheque. That cheque also returned undelivered. Considering these admitted facts, opposite parties have no objection, for refund of initial premium amount of Rs.25,000/-. As noted above, it has been proved by the complainant that, she is the wife of the deceased and the proposer her father-in-law, who is father of the deceased, before this Forum has given consent to get the amount from the opposite parties and hence, the complainant is entitled to the said amount.<br /> <br /> 10. The complainant has claimed all the benefits under the policy. As noted above, the policy was still at the stage of proposal. In this regard, for the opposite parties, it is submitted that, as per the terms of the proposal the risk will not commence till the company accepts the proposal and communicate the acceptance by issuing policy. This aspect is not disputed by the complainant before this Forum. Hence, except initial premium amount, complainant is not entitled for any other amount.<br /> <br /> 11. As could be seen from the records, at the cost of the repletion, firstly the matter was still at the proposal stage and no policy was issued and secondly, opposite parties had sent letter seeking certain clarifications, but the same returned undelivered, may be because of the death of the proposed insured. Hence, no compensation can be awarded. Accordingly, our finding on the point is partly in affirmative.<br /> <br /> 12. Point No. 2:- From the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order.<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The complaint is partly allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite parties jointly and severally are hereby directed to refund a sum of Rs.25,000/-, the initial premium amount to the complainant within a month from the date of the order, failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 10% p.a.<br /> 3. There is no order as to cost.<br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 8th July 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />