BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy , M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
Tuesday the 05th day of October , 2010
C.C. No. 92/09
Between:
G.Dwarakanatha Reddy, S/o G.Nagi Reddy,
R/o. H.No.1/5, Nandyalam Palli Village and Post, Simhadripuram Mandal, Pulivendula Taluk, Kadapa District-516 390. …..Complainant
-Vs-
1.Golden Multi Services Club Limited, By its Branch Manager,
D.No.40/324, U-Con Plaza, Kurnool-518 001.
2 .M/s. Bajaz Allianze General Insurance Company Limited, By its authorized signatory,
Poddar Court, Gate No.3, VII Floor, No.18, Rabindra Sharanee, Kolkata, West Bengal State-700 001.
3. M/s. Bajaz Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, By its Branch In-Charge,
H.No.40/323, Alankar Plaza, Kurnool-518 001. …Opposite PartieS
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. S.Sivaramakrishna Prasad, Advocate, for complainant, and Sri.M.Azmathulla, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and opposite party No. 2 is called absent set ex-parte and Sri.A.V.Subramanayam, Advocate for opposite party No. 3 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No. 92/09
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the OPs
(a) To pay the sum assured i.e., Rs.5,00,000/- under Group
Personal Accident policy bearing No. 0G-05-2401-9960-0000041 with interest at the rate of 18 Percent Per Annum
(b) To grant Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony
(c) To costs of the complaint
And
(d) To grant such other reliefs as the Honourable Forum may deem fit and proper in the in the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows:- The complainant is the son of Late Golla Reddygari Nagi Reddy . Late
Nagi Reddy during his life time joined as a member with OP.No.1. OP.No.2 agreed to provide insurance facility to the members of OP.No.1. On payment of premium a policy bearing No. 0G-05-2401-9960- 0000041 was allotted to Nagi Reddy father of the complainant. The policy was inforce from 23-07-2005 to 22-07-2010. It is a Group Personal Accident Policy. The complainant is the nominee under the said policy. The insured Nagi Reddy died on 14-11-2007 due to electric shock. After the death of his father the complainant submitted the claim forms to OP.No.2 through OP.N.1. OP.No.2 repudiated the claim of the complainant on 10-12-2008 on the ground that the signatures of the insured person in the proposal form not tallied with the signatures on the ration card of the insured. OP.No.2 cancelled the policy. There is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs in settling the claim under the policy. Hence the complaint.
2. OP.No.1 filed written version stating that OP.No.2 agreed to issue insurance policy to the members of OP.No.1. On receipt of the claim from the complainant it was forwarded to OP.No.2. OP.No.2 rejected the claim of the complainant stating that the signatures of the deceased in the proposal form and house hold card differs. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP.No.1.
OP.No.3 filed written version stating the complaint is not a consumer, that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is admitted that OP.No.2 repudiated the claim of the complainant and informed the same through a letter dated 10-12-2008. The claim was repudiated on the ground that the signatures of the insured person on the proposal form not tallied with the signatures on the ration card of the insured. The proposal form is not signed by Nagi Reddy and the policy was obtained by playing fraud on OP.No.2. The policy was obtained by mis representation and that the policy became null and void. The contract of insurance is based on utmost good faith. The policy was cancelled by OP.No.2. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs 2 and 3 in repudiating the claim of the complainant. The death of the deceased was not accidental and that the OPs are not liable to pay any amount to the claimant under the policy.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A6 are marked and the sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1to B7 are marked and the sworn affidavit of OP.No.3 is filed.
5. Both parties filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are
(i) whether the death of the deceased Nagi Reddy is accidental ?
(ii) whether the consumer forum can enquire into the dispute involved in this case ?
(iii) To what relief?
7. Points No.1 :- The complainant filed the complaint against the OPs claiming sum assured under the insurance policy obtained by Nagi Reddy father of the complainant . It is the case of the complainant that his father Nagi Reddy was member of Golden Multi Service Club and that OP.No.2 issued personal accident insurance policy to the members of the OP.No.1 on payment of the premium. It is not the case of the OPs that the policy bearing No.
0G-05-2401-9960-0000041 was not issued. It is the case of the OP.No.3 that the claim submitted by the complainant was repudiated on 10-12-2008. The complainant to show that his father died on 14-11-2007 due to electric shock relied on Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is the copy of the FIR. As seen from Ex.A1 it is very clear that the Station House Officer, Simhadripuram police Cuddapah registered a case in Cr.No.62/07 on the basis of the report given by the complainant. It is mentioned in Ex.A1 that on 14-11-2007 a live electrical wire fell on Nagi Reddy and he died due to the said electrical shock. On behalf of the OPs Ex.B6 and B7 are also filed. Ex.B6 is the final report in Cr.No.62/07. In the said final report of Mandal Executive Magistrate it is mentioned that the death of Nagi Reddy was accidental due to electric shock. In Ex.B7 inquest report also it is mentioned that inquest panchayatdars came to the conclusion that the deceased died accidentally. The learned counsel appearing for the OP.No.3 has submitted that Nagi Reddy died while tapping electricity and that his death is not accidental. As already stated there is a clear mention in Ex.A1, A6, A7 that the death of the Nagi Reddy occurred accidentally on 14-11-2007 due to the fall of live electric wire on him. In view of the documentary evidence the contention of the OP.No.3 can not be accepted. The death of the Nagi Reddy is accidental.
8. Points No.1 :- Admittedly after the death of Nagi Reddy the complainant who is the son of the deceased Nagi Reddy submitted the claim . The said claim of the complainant was repudiated on 10-12-2008 stating that the original proposal form was not singed by Nagi Reddy and it was obtained by playing fraud on OP.No.2. The OPs in support of their contention that the proposal form does not contain the signature of the deceased relied on Ex.B4 opinion of handwriting expert. In Ex.B4 the handwriting expert opined that the questioned signature marked as “ Q/2” was not executed by writer of the admitted signature marked as “Q/1” . Basing on the report of the handwriting expert , OP.No.2 repudiated the claim of the complainant through its letter dated 10-12-2008. In Ex.B3 it is stated that the deceased Nagi Reddy never signed the proposal form. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for OP.No.3 that as there is dispute regarding the genuineness of the signature of the Nagi Reddy in the proposal form elaborate enquiry is required and this forum can not adjudicate the dispute involved . In support of its contention the learned counsel relied on a decision reported in I (2005) CPJ 113 . In the said decision The Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , Chennai held that the genuineness of signature can be decided only by Civil Court where alone elaborate evidence can be adduced for and against the same. The disputes involved in the case cited above and the dispute in the present case on hand are one and the same. In the present case also the OPs 2 and 3 are questioning the genuineness of the signature of the assured in the proposal form. To come to the conclusion it is necessary to examine the expert. Both parties must have an opportunity to cross examine the expert. If the original proposal does not contain the signature of the deceased certainly the complainant is not entitled to any relief as the contract of insurance is based on utmost good faith . Unless it is established that the proposal form is singed by Nagi Reddy , the complainant who is the son of Nagi Reddy is not entitled to the benefits under the policy. As already stated elaborate enquiry has to be made on the point whether the proposal form was singed by the deceased or not. The said enquiry can not be done in consumers forum in view of the decision cited above. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant has submitted that the facts of the case cited above and the facts of the present case are entirely different and that the observation made in the decision cited above cannot be applied in the present case. We have carefully perused the decision cited above where in it is observed that the genuineness of signature can be decided only by a Civil Court where elaborate evidence can be adduced for and against the same. In the light of the observations made in the above cited decision we are of the opinion that the enquiry regarding the genuineness of the signature of the assured on the proposal form can not done by this forum.
10. Points No.3 :- In the result the complaint is dismissed . In the circumstances no costs. The complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil Court for necessary relief.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 05th day of October, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties : Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of FIR in Cr.No.62/2007 of Simhadripuram Police Station.
Ex.A2. Photo copy of Letter dated18-12-2007 addressed by OP2 to the complainant.
Ex.A3. Repudiation letter dated 10-12-2008 addressed by OP 2 to the complainant.
Ex.A4. Photo copy of letter dt. 25-12-2008 addressed by complainant to OP2
Ex.A5. Inquest report.
Ex.A6. Letter dt. 17-01-2009 addressed by the OP No.1 to OP2.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Photo copy of terms and conditions of the policy.
Ex.B2. Photo copy of policy proposal form.
Ex.B3. Repudiation letter dated 10-12-2008 addressed by OP 2 the complainant.
Ex.B4. Letter dt.15-11-2008 of Rajani Kanta Das, Document Expert.
Ex.B5. Photo copy of house hold card
Ex.B6. Final report of Mandal Executive Magistrate, Simhadripuram.
Ex.B7. Photo copy of inquest report.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
