By  Sri.P.K,.Sasi, President

          Complainants are the legal heirs of one Mr.C.B.Asokan, who died on 2/10/09 in a road traffic accident.  There was a land phone connection of 2^nd  opposite party in the name of  Asokan.  The 2^nd opposite party provided an insurance coverage to all the land line customers through the 1^st opposite party.  Accordingly complainants are entitled to get that insurance benefit from the opposite parties.  The complainants came to know about the insurance coverage only after the death of Asokan.  Subsequently they submitted a claim before the 1^st opposite party.   But the 1^st opposite party has repudiated the claim without genuine reason.  Hence this complaint is filed for getting insurance benefit provided by the 2^nd opposite party.

          2. Being noticed on the complaint, both the opposite parties entered appearance through separate counsels and filed separate versions.  In the version filed by the 1^st opposite party, the existence of policy is admitted.  Likewise the claim submitted by the complainant and its rejection is also admitted by the 1^st opposite party.  According to the 1^st opposite party, a Group Personal Accident policy was issued to the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. for a period from 14/1/2009 to 13/1/2010 covering 3,24,96,363 persons for the sum insured of Rs.50,000/-  for accidental death and permanent total disablement.  As per the policy the liability of the insurer is subject to various terms and conditions and exclusions of the policy.

          3. The 1^st opposite party further submitted that   insurance is a contract of indemnity.  Any violation of the insurance contract by the parties to the contract of insurance, the contract becomes void and in such an event the insurance company will not be liable for the claims.

          4. It is further submitted by the 1^st opposite party that the complainant submitted a claim on 24/12/09 for the alleged death of BSNL consumers dated 2/10/09.  It was submitted after 82 days from the date of death.  As per the Memorandum of understanding with BSNL, the claim intimation is to be submitted within 60 days from the alleged date of accident.  It is further submitted by the 1^st opposite party that the policy is a Group Insurance policy and insured are unnamed.  All the subscribers of BSNL are covered by the policy for a specific period without paying any premium by them.  The premium is paid by BSNL.  It is the duty of BSNL to publicize the scheme to their subscribers including the time limit of 60 days for submitting claims.  According to the 1^st  opposite party the complainants had failed to submit their claim in prescribed time limit, hence it is a clear breach of terms and conditions of the policy.  Hence the claim is repudiated by the 1^st opposite party and that was properly intimated to the complainants on 5/1/10. 

          5. The 1^st opposite party also submitted that neither any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice happened on their part and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.

          6. The 2^nd opposite party BSNL, in their version admitted the landline provided in the name of Asokan.  They also admitted the insurance claim existed during that period.  According to 2^nd opposite party however, the insurance cover offered by them to their subscribers, the policies were issued by the 1^st opposite party in the name of deceased Asokan.  There was no privity of contract between the deceased and the 2^nd opposite party.

          7. The 2^nd opposite party further submitted that no intimation regarding the death of Asokan was received to them and also they were not aware about the claim submitted by the complainants.  According to them all the claims relating to insurance scheme are to be settled directly by the 1^st opposite party.  Therefore no deficiency in service can be attributed to the 2^nd opposite party.  They further submitted that they are not responsible to satisfy the claim as per the insurance scheme or to pay any compensation to the complainants and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.

          8. Then the case was posted for evidence and the points for consideration are that:

1) Whether there was any deficiency in service happened on the part of opposite parties?

2) If so what costs and reliefs?

          9. From the side of complainants, 1^st complainant appeared before the Forum and filed proof affidavit in which she has affirmed and explained all the averments stated in the complaint in detail.  She has also produced one document which is marked as Ext.A1.  She was examined as PW1 and cross examined by the counsel for the 1^st opposite party.  Ext.A1 is claim repudiation letter dated 5/1/10.

          10. From the side of 1^st opposite party, Deputy Manager appeared before the Forum and filed proof affidavit in which she has affirmed and narrated all the contentions raised in their version in detail.  She has also produced five documents which are marked as Exts.R1 to R5.  She was examined as RW1 and thoroughly cross examined by counsel for complainant and counsel for 2^nd opposite party.  Ext.R1 is the schedule of Group Personal Accident Policy, Ext.R2 is personal accident claim form submitted by the complainants, Ext.R3 is letter issued by the 1^st complainant dated 24/12/09, Ext.R4 is claim repudiation letter dated 5/1/10 and Ext.R5 is family membership certificate produced by the complainant.  From the side of 2^nd opposite party, Assistant General Manager appeared before the Forum and filed proof affidavit in which she has affirmed and described all the contentions raised in their version in detail.  No documents produced from their side.  The complainants and both the opposite parties filed detailed argument notes and we heard in detail also.

          11. The case of the complainant is that the husband of 1^st complainant and the father of 2^nd and 3^rd complainants, one Mr.Asokan died in an accident.  There was a BSNL landline connection in the name of Asokan and the BSNL has provided insurance coverage of Rs.50,000/- to all landline consumers including Asokan.  The claim submitted by the complainants rejected by the 1^st opposite party by saying unsustainable reasons.  Whereas 1^st opposite party, who is the insurer submitted that they repudiated the claim since the complainants violated the terms and conditions of the policy by submitting claim after 82 days, which is time barred.  The 2^nd opposite party BSNL contended that there is no privity of contract between Asokan and BSNL.  Hence they are not liable for anything.

          12. We have perused the documents produced as well as the evidences adduced from both sides.  Here the question to be considered is that whether the claim submitted by the complainants is time barred or not and whether there was any privity of contract between the insurer and BSNL.  Ext.R1 is a schedule of the policy which clearly shows that the name of insured as BSNL.  And the category of persons to be covered is also mentioned as subscribers of BSNL working landline including WLL etc.  The sum insured is shown as Rs.50,000/- and the number of persons covered 3,24,96,363.  In Ext,R4 claim repudiation letter it is stated that according to the Para 5 of BSNL Personal Accident Scheme the time  limit fixed for submission of claims by the BSNL customers shall be 60 days from the date of occurrence of accident.  But no such document is seen produced before us.  If at all there was such a condition is stipulated in the policy issued by the 1^st opposite party in the name of 2^nd opposite party, it is the duty of the opposite parties to intimate and inform all the consumers/beneficiaries regarding the stipulation of time to submit the claim.  No documents produced before us to show that they have intimated or informed the beneficiaries including the complainants.  Admittedly the claim is submitted on 82^th  day.   According to opposite parties there is delay of 22 days.  The time stipulation is only directory.  If the claim is genuine that can be proceeded at any time.   Here the claimants are an unfortunate widow and her two children.  Before repudiating the claim the opposite parties ought to have been looked into this fact.  Considering all these facts we are of the opinion that there is no willful latches happened on the part of complainants in submitting the claim.  And the rejection of the claim definitely amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

          13. By knowing very well that the policy is issued in the name of BSNL, they have submitted in their version that there was no privity of contract between the BSNL and the insurer as well as the beneficiaries.  That is against the real facts and the documentary evidences available before us.  The BSNL ought not have been taken such a contention.  It is very well clear that this scheme is introduced by BSNL only for attracting customers to retain their existing landline connections.  Therefore, it is the liability of the BSNL to make sure that all the claims are properly settled by the 1^st opposite party. 

          14. Considering all the points discussed hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the complainants are entitled to get Rs.50,000/- as insurance benefit and by denying that, both the opposite parties committed deficiency in service towards the complainants.

          15. In the result, we allow this complaint and the 2^nd opposite party BSNL is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) to the complainants with 9% interest from the date of complaint.  Failing which, the complainants are entitled to get 9% interest till realization.  After complying this order, BSNL can recover that amount of compensation from the insurer, 1^st opposite party.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the   16^th   day of   July 2016.