Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/70/2014

Thapala Adilakshmi, W/o. Thapala Sudhakar - Complainant(s)

Versus

ING Vysya Bank Pvt., Ltd., by its Manager, and Agent of ING Vysya Life Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

G.Ramaiah Pillai

11 Apr 2016

ORDER

Filing Date: 21.08.2014

Order Date:11.04.2016

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

MONDAY THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.70/2014

 

 

Between

 

1.         Thapala Adilakshmi,

            Hindu, Aged 31 years,

            W/o. Thapala Sudhakar.

 

2.         Thapala Sudhakar,

            Hindu, aged 37 years,

            S/o. late. T.Konaiah,

 

Both are wife and husband

Residing at 9-561, Mutharasipalem Street,

Srikalahasti – 517 644,

Chittoor District .                                                                             … Complainants

 

 

 

And

 

1.         ING Vysya Bank Pvt. Ltd.,

            By its Manager,

            And Agent of ING Vysya Life Insurance Company,

            3-161, Kondamitta Street,

            Srikalahasti – 517 644.

 

2.         ING Vysya Life Insurance Company Limited,

            Now known as Exide Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

            No.22, ING Vysya House, 5^th Floor, MG Road,

            Bangalore – 506 001.                                                          …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 22.03.16 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.G.Ramaiah Pillai, counsel for the complainants, and Sri.N.Ravi Prakasam, counsel for the opposite party No.1, and Sri.K.Chengalrayulu, counsel for the opposite party No.2, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERYED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Sections-12 and 14 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainants for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to refund the deposit amount of Rs.99,900/- and Rs.99,800/- to the complainants 1 and 2 respectively, 2) to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to each complainant towards compensation for unfair trade practice and 3) to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses. 

            2.  The averments of the complaint in brief are:- that the complainants 1 and 2 are the wife and husband. They live by labour work and their annual income is Rs.14,000/-. They got a daughter by name T.Swetha, aged 12 years and son by name Leela Vara Prasad, aged 10 years. They are school going children. That the complainants wants to keep Rs.2,00,000/- in fixed deposit with opposite party No.1, in the names of their children for a period of 3 years. For this purpose, they sought the help of one P.Chengalrayulu, a senior citizen and retired Hindi Pandit.

            3.  On 28.07.2011, complainants along with said Chengalrayulu, approached opposite party No.1 – bank, expressed their intention to deposit the amount in the names of their children. Opposite party No.1 collected Rs.99,900/- and Rs.99,800/- from the bank account of Chengalrayulu towards annual premium for two insurance policies in favour of complainants without their knowledge and policies were issued as under:                                                

Policy No.	Name of the Policy Holder	Date of Commencement	Date of Maturity	Sum Assured	Annual Premium
02247192	T.Adilakshmi	28.07.2011	28.07.2069	Rs.10,19,000/-	Rs.89,264/-
02244793	T.Sudhakar	28.07.2011	28.07.2062	Rs.10,19,350/-	Rs.98,380/-

    

As on the date of complaint, age of 1^st complainant is 31 years and age of       2^nd complainant is 37 years. The address given in policies is to that of opposite party No.1. Further, opposite party No.1 advised to collect the amount after 3 years, if they need money. Complainants are under the impression that the documents they signed  are for fixed deposits. After 3 years, complainants 1 and 2 approached opposite party No.1 – bank, for refund of the amount they deposited on 28.07.2011, but opposite party No.1 informed that policies were lapsed for non-payment of subsequent annual premiums and nothing is payable to complainants and they are not entitled to even surrender value.

            4.  Complainants got issued legal notice on 12.05.2014 to opposite parties 1 and 2, stating that they never intended to take policies of ING Vysya Insurance Company and that they have no such capacity to pay such enormous annual premium amount of Rs.99,900/- and Rs.99,800/- and opposite party No.1 mislead the complainants. Opposite party No.1, is the agent of opposite party No.2. That the address given in the policies is “care of opposite party No.1 at 3-161, Kondamitta, Srikalahasti”. Opposite party No.1 did not give reply to the notice dt:12.05.2014. Opposite party No.2 gave reply on 27.05.2014 stating that ING Vysya Life Insurance Company Limited, is now known as ‘Exide Life Insurance Company Limited’ with effect from 29.04.2014 and gave false versions. The complainants, therefore, sent rejoinder on 09.06.2014 to the reply given by opposite party No.2 stating that opposite party No.1 filled the forms and obtained the signatures of the complainants without read-over the contents thereof. Hence the complaint.

            5.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 have filed their (common) written version denying the complaint allegations parawise and further contending that the averments made in para.6 of the complaint are true and correct, that opposite party No.1 is not a agent to opposite party No.2, and it is nothing to do with opposite party No.2. Operations of opposite party No.1 are different from that of opposite party No.2, as such opposite party No.1, is not liable for the acts of opposite party No.2. The complaint is hit by brevity of contract.

            6.  That one P.Chengalrayulu, has transferred an amount of Rs.99,900/- and Rs.99,800/- from his savings account, from the bank of opposite party No.1, by way of two demand drafts on his own accord on 28.07.2011. Except that opposite party No.1 did nothing. Complaint is fault and concocted. The said Chengalrayulu is the father of 1^st complainant, as per the information collected by opposite party No.1. The complainants are not entitled to any amount, much less the claimed amount. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            7.  For the complainants chief affidavits of P.W.1 and P.W.2 filed and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. On the other hand for the opposite parties R.W.1 and R.W.2 were filed and got marked Exs.B1 to B17. Both parties have filed their respective written arguments. Heard the counsel for both parties.

            8.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i).  Whether the complainants have made payments for fixed deposits in the

                   names of their children?

            (ii)  Whether the complainants have taken insurance policies as alleged by the

                   opposite parties?

            (iii)  Whether there is unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?

            (iv)  Whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs sought for?

            (v)  To what relief?

            9.  Points (i) & (ii):- Admittedly, complainants are not worldly wise. Their case is that they intended to keep a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in fixed deposit with opposite party No.1-bank, in the names of their minor children T.Swetha, aged 12 years and son by name Leela Vara Prasad, aged 10 years. They took the assistance of P.Chengalrayulu, a Senior Citizen and retired Hindi Pandit, and approached opposite party No.1 i.e. ING Vysya Bank Pvt. Ltd. It is admitted that complainants handed-over a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- proposed to be kept in fixed deposits, to the said Chengalrayulu, which was deposited in the account of Chengalrayulu in opposite party No.1 – bank on 28.07.2011. Opposite party No.1, being the agent of opposite party No.2 ING Vysya Life Insurance Company Ltd, made correspondence with Chengalrayulu and opposite party No.2. It is apparent on record that no application was obtained from the complainants to take the policies of opposite party No.2 in the names of complainants. Ex.B9 consists of two proposal forms, one in the name of 1^st complainant and another in the name of 2^nd complainant. Ex.B12 is the copy of proposal form of 2^nd complainant. Column.18 of Ex.B9 shows that exact nature of work / business is shown as ‘cultivation’. Column.19 shows that Annual Income of 1^st complainant is Rs.4,00,000/- and husband (2^nd complainant) income is Rs.5,00,000/-. Column.23 shows that nominee is T.Swetha, appointee is T.Sudhakar, in detail in the proposal form of 1^st complainant, 2^nd complainant is shown as appointee of the nominee. Similarly, in the proposal form of 2^nd complainant, 1^st complainant is  shown as appointee.

            10.  Ex.A1 is Statement of Account of Chengalrayulu. Ex.A2 is the first premium receipt issued by opposite party No.2 in favour of 2^nd complainant for Rs.99,900/- dt:29.07.2011. Hear one thing should be noted, complainants attended opposite party No.1-bank, only on 28.07.2011 but the first premium receipt under Ex.A2 was issued by opposite party No.2 on 29.07.2011 in the absence of 2^nd complainant Ex.A3 is welcome letter along with policy in favour of 2^nd complainant dt:29.07.2011 with terms and conditions. In the proposal form issued by opposite party No.2 signature of the 2^nd complainant was found on the left margin of the proposal form. Ex.A4 is first premium receipt dt:30.08.2011 in the name of 1^st complainant for Rs.99,800/- issued by opposite party No.2. Ex.A5 is welcome letter dt:31.08.2011 with policy of 1^st complainant along with terms and conditions, proposal form issued by opposite party No.2. In the written version except denial of parawise allegations in the complaint and except the admission of contents of para.6 of complaint, no defense versions were there in the written version for the opposite parties. It appears prima facie, that Exs.A2 to A5 are the correspondence between     1^st opposite party and Chengalrayulu, complainants are in no way concerned with those documents, except their signatures on the proposal forms. The complainants’ intention is to keep the amount in fixed deposit in the names of their children but the opposite party No.1-bank, obtained signatures of the complainants on some documents and said that the amounts were already kept in fixed deposits and complainants can withdraw those amounts after 3 years. Thus, the complainants were make believe that their amounts were kept in fixed deposit in the names of their children and that they can withdraw the amounts after 3 years i.e. after expiry of fixed deposit term. By virtue of these documents and Exs.B2, B3, B4 to B8, it shows that the said Chengalrayulu received an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainants and deposited the said amount in his own account bearing account No.337010068949 and gave D.D.Challan under Ex.B3 and Ex.B6 for Rs.99,800/- and Rs.99,900/- in favour of opposite party No.1-bank, but transferred that amounts in favour of IVL A/c of T.Adilakshmi (1^st complainant) and T.Sudhakar (2^nd complainant). Admittedly, no such IVL accounts were opened or proposed to be opened in the name of Adilakshmi or Sudhakar in the opposite party No.1-bank or with opposite party No.2 Insurance Company. Those D.D amounts were collected from the account of Chengalrayulu and transferred to the alleged IVL accounts of 1^st and 2^nd complainants on 28.07.2011 under Ex.B3 and Ex.B6. It clearly establishes that though there were no accounts opened with opposite party No.1 by the complainants, opposite party No.1 having hand-in-glove with said Chengalrayulu, deposited the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in the account of Chengalrayulu and on the D.D.Challans and Debit Forms issued by Chengalrayulu, opposite party No.1 - bank transferred those amounts into IVL accounts of complainants 1 and 2 and issued policies. The full form of IVL was not mentioned anywhere and where those accounts are opened or existing. Whatever the correspondence that was made under Ex.B2 to Ex.B8, were the correspondence between Chengalrayulu and opposite party No.1 – bank, and this correspondence is without the knowledge of complainants. Therefore, both Chengalrayulu as well as opposite party No.1 cheated the complainants 1 and 2 by creating insurance policies in favour of complainants 1 and 2 instead of depositing their amounts in fixed deposits in the names of the children of complainants.

            11.  The procedure for obtaining fixed deposit receipts or to keep the amounts in fixed deposit is that the complainant can approach any banker and express their intention to keep the amounts in the names of their children in fixed deposit and fulfill necessary formalities with the assistance of bankers i.e. concerned bank managers. If at all, they need any account to be opened, if any existing account holder introduce the complainants, accounts can be opened in favour of the complainants, thereafter the procedure contemplated for keeping amounts in fixed deposit shall be entertained. Instead of doing so, Chengalrayulu with mala fide intention deposited the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- of the complainants in his own account No.337010068949, which is totally unwarranted, and then made the entire correspondence with opposite party No.1-bank, without the knowledge of the complainants, pretending that those amounts were kept in fixed deposits. This is nothing but cheating the complainants by misleading them and also with a fraudulent intention, to swallow that amount for the illegal benefit of opposite party No.1 or opposite party No.2, which are sister concern. Thus the intention of complainants is clear that they wants to keep the amount in fixed deposits in the names of their children, on the other hand, the intention of opposite party No.1 and Chengalrayulu, is to take policies in the names of complainants with ill motive for the illegal benefit of the opposite parties. Accordingly points 1 and 2 are answered.

            12. Point No.(iii):-  the attitude of opposite parties 1 and 2 is clearly established by virtue of Exs.B2 to B14, that the intention of opposite parties 1 and 2 is to swallow the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and not to pay even a single pie to the complainants or to their children during their life time, even by virtue of the alleged policies, for the reasons mentioned hereunder. Ex.B9 proposal form shows the permanent address of the complainants as D.No.9-292 (it was mentioned as 9-251 to 9-566), which itself implies more than 300 house numbers at Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. The policies were issued under Ex.B9 in favour of the complainants by opposite party No.2. The address of complainants were mentioned in the policies are “C/o. ING Vysya Bank, D.No.3-161, Kondamitta, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District – 517 644, Mobile No.9618855070, agent name is shown as ING Vysya Bank Ltd and agent code is mentioned as 60105713”. In Exs.B9, B12, B13, B14 & B15, the address of the complainants is mentioned as C/o. ING Vysya Bank, D.No.3-161, Kondamitta, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District – 517 644. If the policies are given really in the name of complainants, the policy holder address should be there on the proposal form, as well as in the policy, but those addresses were in the name of 1^st opposite party. 

            13.  Another important point to be noted is the proposal form of                      1^st complainant shows Date of Birth of 1^st complainant as 07.02.1984, proposal date is 29.07.2011, age of 1^st complainant as on 29.07.2011 is 27 years 5 months and 22 days. Column.42 of Ex.B9 shows that product name is FLA (no full form is given). Column.44 of Ex.B9 shows the installment premium as Rs.99,800/- p.a. Column.45 of Ex.B9 shows the premium payment period is 16 years. Column.46 of Ex.B9 shows the policy term as 85 years. Thus the 1^st complainant age is 27 years, policy term is 85 years. So the policy was made for 112 years. Column.57 of Ex.B9 shows the spouse age is 35 years as on 29.07.2011. Similarly, the age of 2^nd complainant as per Ex.B9 proposal form is 34 years 10 months and 28 days (his date of birth is shown as 30.08.1976). Column.44 of proposal form of 2^nd complainant shows that installment premium is Rs.99,900/-. Column.45 shows premium payment period as 16 years and Column.46 shows the policy term as 85 years. Column.42 shows the product name as FLA (no full form is given), policy is for 85 years from the date of proposal. By the date of maturity of policy, the age of proposer i.e. 2^nd complainant will be 120 years. If the 1^st complainant policy payment for 16 years i.e. 99,800 x 16 = 15,96,800. As per Column.43 sum assured is only Rs.11,23,360, so difference is Rs.4,73,560/-. Similarly, so far as 2^nd complainant is concerned, the policy premiums if paid for      16 years, the total amount will be Rs.15,98,400/-, but the sum assured is Rs.10,19,350/-, difference is Rs.5,79,150/-. It clearly shows that the opposite parties were not intended even to pay the paid-up value of the policies, if such policies were true and the policy holders paid those amounts. If the policy amount of 1^st complainant for 85 years is calculated, it will be Rs.84,83,000/- and for the 2^nd complainant it will be Rs.84,91,500/-. Under which procedure the sum assured was mentioned as only Rs.11,23,360/- for 1^st complainant and Rs.10,19,350/- for 2^nd complainant by the opposite party No.2. Thus the intention of opposite parties shows their mischious nature and prepared to cheat the public in the guise of insurance policies and they do not want to pay any amount to policy holder or their children. In Ex.B9, nominees i.e. children of complainants Swetha and Leela Vara Prasad, will also become aged 94 years and 92 years respectively by the date of maturity of the policies. Thus the crooked nature of opposite parties was established prima facie on the record.

            14.  Now it is pertinent to mention what is unfair trade practice. Section-2(1)(r) of the C.P.Act 1986, defines the word unfair trade practice as follows:-

“unfair trade practice” means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely:-   (1)  the practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation which, -   (i) falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model; (ii) falsely represents that the services are of a particular standard, quality or grade; (iii) falsely represents any re-built, second-hand, renovated, reconditioned or old goods as new goods; (iv)  represents that the goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance, characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits which such goods or services do not have; (v)  represents that the seller or the supplier has a sponsorship or approval or affiliation which such seller or supplier does not have; (vi)  makes a false or misleading representation concerning the need for, or the usefulness of, any goods or services; (vii)  given to the public any warranty or guarantee of the performance, efficacy or length of life of a product or of any goods that is not based on an adequate or proper test thereof: provided that where a defence is raised to the effect that such warranty or guarantee is based on adequate or proper test, the burden of proof of such defence shall lie on the person raising such defence; (viii)  makes to the public a representation in a form that purports to be,- (i)  a warranty or guarantee of a product or of any goods; or services; or (ii)  a promise to replace, maintain or repair an article or any part thereof or to repeat or continue a service until it has achieved a specified result etc.

                                                               

            the definition itself is very clear, that the trade practice which for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the clauses mentioned Here, in this case opposite parties 1 and 2 have not only adopted unfair trade practice but also deceptive methods and cheated the complainants. Keeping policy term for 85 years, expecting the life span of complainants to 112 years and 120 years itself is a deceptive nature and misleading the complainants by concealing the facts that they have issued polices for 112 years and 120 years in the names of complainants 1 and 2 respectively. In Ex.B10, opposite party No.2 mentioned agent name as ING Vysya Bank Ltd and also furnished Agent Code No.60105713. This is against the contents of the written version filed by the opposite parties under which opposite party No.2 stated that opposite party No.1 is not at all concerned with opposite party No.2 and their duties are individual and separate. Opposite party No.1, is nothing to do with opposite party No.2. When the documents supplied by opposite party No.2 themselves shows that opposite party No.1 is their agent, their defence version in this regard cannot be accepted. Thus, it is found prima facie that opposite party No.1 is the agent of opposite party No.2 and on the above mentioned grounds, we are of the opinion that opposite parties 1 and 2 have adopted unfair trade practice and deceptive methods in order to swallow the entire amount of Rs.2,00,000/- of the complainants and their intention is also clear that they do not want to pay even a single pie to the complainants or their children. Accordingly this point is answered.

            15.  Point No.(iv):-  in view of our discussion made under points 1 to 3, we are of the opinion that complainants have established that opposite parties 1 and 2 have cheated them and adopted unfair trade practice and also deceptive methods and taken away the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- belongs to complainants 1 and 2 in hand-in-glove with said Chengalrayulu. Therefore, complainants are entitled to the reliefs sought for. Accordingly this point is answered.

            16.  Point No.(v):-in view of our discussion held on points 1 to 4, we are of the opinion that complainants have established that opposite parties 1 and 2 have mislead them and adopted unfair trade practice and deceptive methods and intended to avoid to pay even a single pie to the complainants or their children out of the amount they deposited with opposite party No.1– bank. Therefore complaint is deserves to be allowed with costs.

            In the result, complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.99,900/- (Rupees ninety nine thousand nine hundred only) and Rs.99,800/- (Rupees ninety nine thousand eight hundred only) to the complainants 1 and 2 respectively along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e. 28.07.2011, till realization and also opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally are directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each to the complainants 1 and 2 respectively towards compensation for the unfair trade practice and deceptive methods adopted by opposite parties 1 and 2 and the opposite parties 1 and 2 also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. Opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally are further directed to comply with the orders within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- each to the complainants 1 and 2) shall also carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of order, till realization. 

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 11^th day of April, 2016.

 

      Sd/-                                                                                                                       Sd/-                                                                                                                         

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainants.

 

PW-1: Thapala Adilakshmi  (Chief/ Evidence Affidavit filed).

PW-2: Palli Chengalrayulu (Third party Affidavit filed)

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite Parties.

 

RW-1: S. Chandrasekhar (Chief Affidavit filed).

RW-2: S. Chandan (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANTs

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	The photo copy of bank statement of account from 01.01.2011 to 31.12.2011 of P.Chengalrayulu showing the debit amount of Rs.99,900/- and Rs.99,800/- by the Opposite Party No.1 Bank. Dt: 30.07.2014.
	First premium receipt (Original) for Rs.99,900/- issued by the Opposite Party No.2. in favour of Thapala Sudhakar. Dt: 29.07.2011.
	Letter by the Opposite Party No.2 to complainant No.2 enclosing the policy bonds (Original) etc. Dt: 29.07.2011.
	First premium receipt (Original) for Rs. 99,800/- in favour of T.Adilakshmi complaint No.1 by the opposite party No.2. Dt: 30.08.2011.
	Letter from the opposite party No.2 to complainant No.1 T.Adilakshmi enclosing the policy document 02247192 (Original) etc. Dt: 30.08.2011.
	Office copy of legal notice to the opposite parties No.1 & 2 with postal acknowledgements. Dt: 12.05.2014.
	Reply from the opposite party No.2 to the legal notice (Original). Dt: 27.05.2014.
	Rejoinder to opposite party No.2 with postal acknowledgement. Dt: 09.06.2014.
	Photo copies of Household Card, Rajiv Aarogyasri Health Card of P.Chengalrayulu.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTYs

 

Exhibits   (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
1.	True copy of Statement of Account for the period of 01.01.2011 to 26.02.2015.
2.	Attested photo copy of pay in slip paid by Mr P.Chengalrayulu. Dt: 27.07.2011.
3.	Attested photo copy of D.D.Challan request form raised by Mr. P. Chegalrayulu for Rs.99,800/- duly signed by P.Chegalrayulu Dt: 28.07.2011.
4.	Attested photo copy of Debit form raised by P.Changalrayulu and duly signed by him. Dt: 28.07.2011.
5.	Attested photo copy of D.D. for Rs.99,800 in favour of T. Audilakshmi.  Dt: 28.07.2011.
6.	Attested photo copy of D.D.Challan raised by P.Chengalrayulu for Rs.99,900 from his Account 337010068949. Dt: 28.07.2011.
7.	Attested photo copy of Debit form raised by P.Chengalrayulu for Rs.99,900/- duly signed by him. Dt: 28.07.2011.
8.	Attested photo copy of D.D. for Rs.99,900/- in favour of T. Sudhakar.  Dt: 28.07.2011.
9.	Original proposal forms of the complainants. Dt: 29.07.2011 & 28.07.2011.
10.	Photo copy of the Policy document of T.Adilakshmi. Dt: 30.08.2011.
11.	Photo copy of the Policy document of T.Sudhakar. Dt: 29.07.2011.
12.	Photo copy of Declaration with Proposal form Dt: 28.07.2011 of T. Sudhakar.
13.	Photo copy of the Policy document of T.Sudhakar. Dt: 29.07.2011.
14.	Photo copy of letter by Opposite Party No.2 to T.Audilakshmi (Complainant No.1) Dt: 08.09.2012.
15.	Photo copy of Remainder letter to the T.Audilakshmi. Dt: 29.10.2012.
16.	Photo copy of Refund of Premium amount by way of cheque by way of letter. Dt: 23.01.2013.
17.	Photo copy of Declaration filed with Proposal form of T. Audilakshmi. Dt: 29.07.2011

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                                               President

            

             // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

                Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

 Copies to:-    1. The complainants.

                       2. The opposite parties.