BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 30/11/2010

Date of Order : 30/11/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 637/2010

Between

And

O R D E R

C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

1. The facts of the complainant's case are as follows :-

The complainant is the mother and the legal heir of the deceased Sajeendran, he died in a train accident at Ernakulam. The deceased Sajeendran was employed at Dubai as electrician. On 21-12-2006, he left to Dubai by an employment Visa. On 12-12-2006, he availed a Pravasi Bharathiya Bima Yojana Policy from the 2^nd opposite party. On 11-05-2008, the deceased returned form Dubai on leave. On 26-05-2008, he went to Ernakulam for the confirmation of the plane ticket for his return journey to Dubai after one month. His return air ticket and passport and all other records related to his employment is lost and it could not be found out so far. The complainant put forth a claim before the opposite parties, but they have repudiated the claim due to reason that the deceased had left the job and returned to India on 11-05-2008 as per the cancelled visa issued by United Arab Emirates. By repudiating the claim of the complainant, the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service. The reliefs sought for against the opposite parties are to allow the complaint to realise Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation, and Rs. 25,000/- as legal fees and litigation costs.

2. The version of the opposite parties :

The opposite parties have granted a Pravasi Bharathiya Bhima Yojana Policy to Sajeendran for the period from 12-12-2006 to 11-12-2008. The death claim of Sajeendran was repudiated by the company, since his claim is falling outside the purview of the policy conditions. The deceased Sajeendran had left his job abroad and returned to India on 11-05-2008. The U.A.E. had cancelled the Visa of the deceased and a copy of the same was submitted by the complainant before the insurance company. Thus, from the said document it can be seen that at the time of death he had no employment abroad. As per the policy coverage, the personal accident of an emigrant is covered and here in this case the deceased Sajeendran was not an emigrant at the time of his death. The opposite parties have not caused any mental agony or hardship to the complainant and she is not entitled for any compensation from them.

3. The complainant and the opposite parties appeared through the counsel. The complainant examined as PW1. Exts. A1 to A8 were marked on her side. On the side of the opposite parties, Exts. B1 and B2 were marked. Thereafter, we heave heard both sides.

4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get insurance claim amount from the opposite parties?

2. Compensation and costs, if any?

5. Point Nos. i. and ii. :- It is not disputed that the deceased had taken policy from the 2^nd opposite party. The reason for repudiation of the claim is that at the time of death, the deceased had no employment abroad. As per the policy conditions, only an emigrant is covered. Nothing is on record to show that the complainant was an emigrant at the time of the accident. Ext. A2 is the repudiation letter, Ext. A3 is the copy of FIR, Ext. A4 is the copy of inquest report, Ext. A5 is the copy of postmortem report, Ext. A6 is the copy of the Final report in Crime No. 680/80, Ext. A7 is the death certificate of the deceased Sajeendran and Ext. A8 is the policy of the deceased.

7. In short, nothing is before us to the fact that at the time of accident, the deceased Sajeendran had employment at Dubai, but the opposite parties disputed that. In Ext. B1 the copy of the policy in which it is mentioned under the head 'policy coverage benefits' 1 (a) personal accident (emigrant). Ext. B2 is the copy of passport of late Sajeendran. in which it is specifically mentioned the word “cancellation” of Visa. Seal of cancellation is also affixed in it. It is admitted that Sajeendran had returned from Dubai on 11-05-2008. Therefore, at the time of death the deceased had left his job abroad and was not holding valid Visa. So the claim of the complainant will not come under the purview of the terms and conditions of the policy. In the aforementioned reasons, we are only to hold that the complaint deserves dismissal. Ordered accordingly.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30^th day of November 2011.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member. Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========