By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:

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

The sum up of the complaint is as follows:- The Complainant is a subscriber of the 2^nd Opposite Party having telephone No. 04935 244523. The Complainant met with a vehicle accident and as offered by the 2^nd Opposite Party for insurance benefits the claim of the Complainant was rejected on the ground that it was much delayed. The rejection of the claim is absolutely deficiency in service. There may be an order directing the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties:-

1. To give the Complainant the claim amount Rs.75,000/-

2. Towards the cost and mental pain Rs.10,000/- is also to be paid to the Complainant by the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties.

2. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties filed version in brief it is as follows:- The 1^st Opposite Party entered into Personal Accident Policy Scheme with the 2^nd Opposite Party for the period in between 14.1.2009 to 13.1.2010. The sum assured was Rs.50,000/- for accidental death and permanent total disability. The insurer and the insured are bound by a contract in terms. The claim of the insured can only be entertain if the terms and conditions of the policy are complied. The accident alleged according to the Complainant on 09.02.2009 and death intimated to this insurer only on 05.06.2009. Which was large delay and even after the laps of the period of 60 days the time limit for each and every claim limited to 60 days on the occurrence of accident. There is no deficiency on the part of the 1^st Opposite Party the claim itself was devoid of any merit which resulted in rejection.

3. The version of the 2^nd Opposite Party in short is as follows:- The dispute alleged herein is beyond the jurisdiction limit of this Forum. While the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the dispute is to be dissolved by the way of arbitration. The 2^nd Opposite Party undertook the coverage of the policy to the subscribers in free of cost and the petition is not maintainable, since the Complainant is not a consumer. The 2^nd Opposite Party already gave an explanation of the insurance scheme for the benefit of the public in large. Any claim to be raised by the subscriber it is to be routed through BSNL. There was large delay forwarding the application through the insurer. The scheme is absolutely for personal accident death and permanent total disability insurance coverage which is entirely different from mediclaim. The claim can be considered only if the claimant had permanent total disability due to accident and it is to be supported by FIR certificate and disability from government hospital photograph showing disability already attested by a government doctor. The condition which are necessary to consider the claim are not complied by the Complainant and in short the Complainant is not eligible for the benefit of this scheme. The complaint is absolutely baseless fixative in nature and it is to be dismissed with cost.

4. Points in consideration are:-

1. Whether any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

5. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A10 series and Exts.B1 to B6. The oral testimony of the Complainant is also taken into consideration.

6. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant met with a vehicle accident on

09.02.2009. Being a consumer of telephone connection the Complainant is entitled for the benefit of the insurance offered by the Opposite Party. The 1^st Opposite Party is the insurer, who is liable for the issuance of the insured sum to the subscribers. Ext.A5 details the conditions required for the scheme benefits. The insurance cover the period from 14.1.2009 to 13.1.2010 and it was given freely to the subscribers without imposing any additional charges. The insurance amount was Rs.50,000/- per connection in case of accidental death or permanent disability due to accident. Ext.A8 also shows that the Complainant had the injury (1) Fracture of medial metacarpus. (2) Sprain of right angle. The oral testimony of the Complainant it is also admitted that the coverage of the risk extend only to accidental death or permanent total disablement due to accident. The document which are necessary for awarding the claim are to be sent through the nominated officers BSNL within the limit of the prescribed time. In the instant case the Complainant has no such contention that he had sustained permanent total disablement caused in course of an accident. No such document is also produced by the Complainant to substantiate the contention and it is also admitted by the Complainant that he is not having the certificate of disability which is to be produced in this case. In such a circumstance we are in the opinion that the service rendered by the Opposite Party is free of cost no extra charge is imposed upon that. The Complainant itself found to be devoid of merit and the points are found accordingly.

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

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 31^st May 2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. Mathai Complainant.

Witnesses for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1 Prashob. S.D.O.T. , Telecom Mananthavady.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1 series (2 in numbers) Bill.

A2. Copy of Letter. dt:09.07.2009.

A3. Copy of Notice. dt:17.08.2009.

A4 series Postal Receipts and Acknowledgment Cards.

A5. Letter.

A6. Letter. dt:26.06.2009.

A7. Copy of Accident Register – Cum Wound

Certificate. dt:09.02.2009.

A8. Copy of the First Information Report. dt:09.02.2009.

A9. Acknowledgment for SRV. REQ. Registration.

A10 series. X-ray.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Notice. dt:17.08.2009.

B2. Copy of Letter.

B3. Free Personal Accidental Insurance coverage

from 14.01.2009 to 13.01.2010.

B4. Copy of Letter. dt:09.01.2009.

B5. Copy of BSNL Personal Accidental Insurance Scheme.

B6 series. Copy of Personal Accident Insurance Policy.