BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy B. Com., LL.B., Member
Wednesday the 20 the day of July, 2005
CD No. 29/2005
1. U.Maddamma,
W/o. Late U.C Venkateswarlu.
2. U.Srilatha,
D/o. Late U.C Venkateswarlu.
3. U.Srikanth, S/o. Late U.C Venkateswarlu.
All are residence of
Penchikalapadu (V),Gudur (M), Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainants
-Vs-
1. G.L.Kantha Reddy, S/o. G.Seshi Reddy, Agent of LIC of India,
Code No. 36365M, R/o. Sri V.V Nilayam, K.Nagalapuram (V),Kallur (M),Kurnool Dist.
2. The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Yemmiganur branch,
Yemmiganur, Kurnool Dist.
. . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on 18.7.2005 for arguments in the presence of Sri G. Narayan, Advocate for complainant and Sri L.Hariharanatha Reddy, advocate for opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.1 set exparte and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made following.
O R D E R
(As per Smt. C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member)
1. This CD case of the complainant is filed under section 12 of Consumer protection Act seeking direction on the opposite parties to pay them Rs. 80,000/- i.e double the policy amount payable on the contingency of accidental death of the policy holder – and interest of 18% per annum on the said amount from the date of the complaint, Rs. 2,000/- towards mental agony and costs alleging U.C Venkateswarlu who took policy No. 652587423 for Rs. 40,000/- with double accident benefit died in accident on 21.2.2003 leaving behind him the complainants who are wife and children and the opposite parties failed to pay the entitled amount inspite of a claim to that effect and a demand notice accordingly and the said conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service.
2. In pursuance of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant, vide the opposite party No.1 remained exparte to the proceedings, the opposite party No.2 which issued said policy, contested the case by making his appearance and filling their written version denying any of its liability to the complainant and seeking its dismissal alleging the complainant No.1 as nominee of the insured and the lapse of the policy during the life time of the said insured its self on default of payment of half yearly premium due on 28.7.2002 and as not even made good even in grace period of one month and hence the claim of the complainant is not entertainable as nothing would be payable on lapsed policy and thereby no deficiency of service on its part and there by any valued cause of action for the complainant’s case and the suppression of the filing of the same case earlier of as CD 60/2004 and its dismissal on 23.9.2004 at the dismissal of IA 422/2004 filed seeking restoration.
3. In substantiation of its contentions while the complainants side relied upon its own sworn affidavits in reiteration of its complaint contents and documents filed along with the complaint, the opposite party side relied upon its sworn affidavit and the documentary record marked in Ex B.1 to B.4 and interrogatories and replies exchanged in between them.
4. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant made out any deficiency of service of opposite party and there by their entitleness for the claim:-
5. The sworn affidavit of the complainant dated 6.5.2005 allege the practice of deceased insured to remit the premium of the policy through the opposite party No.1 who he is agene of No.2. Except alleging as such the complaint has not placed any material in substation of said fact nor there is any admission on the part of the opposite party in that regard nor any premium payment receipt filed envisaging its payment through the agent, is filed by the complainant hence, the said plea remains as plea for plea sake without any substance worthy of consideration.
6. As long as there is any stipulation in the terms and conditions of policy obligating the insurer (Insurance Company) to cause any notice as to due premium or the lapse of the policies and the causing of any notice is as a matter of curtesy and not as a matter of rule, it shall be on the insured policy holder to see the remittance of the due premiums properly within time or at least during the gracy period before its expiry and see the continuance of the policy without being lapsed for default of premium remittances. Hence, if the policy lapses on account of default of premium remittance, no excuses shall be available to the insured or the claimants under said insured and so can take any shelter under any other circumstances of these matters that may live in between the agent and insurance company.
7. As the death of insured was not in much dispute is the xerox documents as to first information report, death certificate and postmortem examination certificate does not appear to be relevant being marked for any consideration . The xerox of the agents slip, not admissible as it is not original and its alleged filing in CD 60/2004 especially when the said CD is not pending, cannot be any sequenced for not getting its return for its filling in this case for its consideration. Nearly because the Ex B.3 - proposal for said policy envisages the approach of the insured to insurance company through agent it does not necessarily mean, in the absence of any stipulation in terms and conditions permitting the payment of premium by insured to insurer through agent, and the absence of any material record as to the alleged payment of premium up to date through agent till demise of insured, no insurance in favour of the complainant will be available.
8. The Ex B.4 is the attested xerox of policy of insured envisages the particulars of premium payable the periodically, commencement of policy, its date of maturity etc and the period considering double accident benefit. As those conditions shall have force when the policy is in force and not when it lapses, the complainant is not remaining entitle to avail the said benefit of policy in the absence of any proof to the effect the policy was inforce at the time of demise of the insured.
9. The Ex B.1 letter of intimation dt 12.6.2003 says as to why the claim is not entertained it clear envisages that on account of lapse of policy on default of due premium after to 28.1.2002. The said was not rebutted by the complainant’s side by any positive material evidencing the payment of the due premiums of said policy by insured till demise of himself. Hence, any amount of notices demanding the policy amount could of any avail and help to the complainant and so no response to the said notice of the complainant remains by post of any credit to the account of the complainant.
10. Therefore, in the circumstance discussed above as the complainant shall not accrue any right for the claim under the lapsed policy, there appears any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in not entitling the complainants and hence for want of proper cause of action obligating the opposite party for the claiming of the complainant, the complaint is dismissed with costs.
Dictation to the Stenographer, Typed to dictation corrected by us pronounce in the open court this the 20th day of July, 2005.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
For the complainants For the opposite parties
-Nil- -Nil-
List of Exhibits Marked
For the complainants For the opposite parties
- Nil- Ex B.1 True copy of letter addressed
to the complainant, dt 12.6.2003.
Ex B.2 States report of policy
bearing No. 652587423 dt 4.6.03.
Ex B.3 True copy of LIC policy
bearing No. 652587423.
Ex B.4 True copy proposed dt
26.7.2001.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy was made on ready :
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
Copy to:-
1. G.Narayana, Advocate for complainant
2. L.Hariharanatha Reddy, Advocate for opposite party No.2
3. G.L.Kantha Reddy, opposite party No.1
S/o. G.Seshi Reddy,
Agent of LIC of India,
Code No. 36365M,
R/o. Sri V.V Nilayam,
K.Nagalapuram (V),
Kallur (M),
Kurnool Dist.
