Karnataka

Mysore

CC/10/98

K.Nandish - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC of India and another - Opp.Party(s)

T.N.Nagananda

14 Jun 2010

ORDER


DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MYSORE
No.1542/F, Anikethana Road, C and D Block, J.C.S.T. Layout, Kuvempunagara, (Behind Jagadamba Petrol Bunk), Mysore-570009.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/98

K.Nandish
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

LIC of India and another
Secretary, The Milk Production Co-Operative Society
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi 2. Sri A.T.Munnoli3. Sri. Shivakumar.J.

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J. B.A., L.L.B., - Member CC 98-2010 DATED 14.06.2010 ORDER Complainant K.Nandish, S/o Late V.Kempanna, R/at Arepura Village, Thondavadi Post, Begur Hobli, Gundlupet Taluk, Chamarajangara District. (By Sri. TNN, Advocate) Vs. Opposite Parties 1. The Branch Manager, The Life Insurance Corp of India, B & GS Unit, KRS Road, Mysore-570020. 2. Secretary, The Milk Production Co-operative Society, Arepura, Village, Thondavadi Post, Begur Hobli, Gundlupet Taluk, Chamarajanagara District. (By Sri. KRS, Advocate for O.P. and By Sri NCS, Advocate for O.P.2 Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service Date of filing of complaint : 25.03.2010 Date of appearance of O.P. : 09.04.2010 Date of order : 14.06.2010 Duration of Proceeding : 2 MONTHS 5 DAYS PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER Sri. A.T.Munnoli, President 1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act, alleging deficiency in insurance service on the part of the first opposite party, seeking direction to pay the insured amount, compensation and cost. 2. The first opposite party in the version has contended that, mother of the complainant was not covered under group insurance scheme. Mysore Milk Union is the master policy holder. The complaint is not maintainable for non-joinder of Milk Union. Further, it is contended that, scheme was not introduced as minimum number of members were not enrolled. Hence, the amount deposited by the second opposite party was refunded. 3. The second opposite party in the version stated that, mother of the complainant had joint group insurance scheme and this opposite party had credited a sum of Rs.7,400/- as per the scheme introduced and after death of mother of the complainant, required documents were sent, claiming death benefits. But, first opposite party on 24.06.20098 refused the claim and refunded the amount. 4. Respective parties have filed their affidavits in support of their contentions and produced certain documents. We have heard the arguments and perused the records. 5. Now, we have to consider, whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought? 6. Our finding on the point is negative, for the following reasons. REASONS 7. According to the complainant, his mother Mahadevamma was member of second opposite party. The first opposite party introduced pension and group insurance scheme. Mother of the complainant was member of the scheme. She died on 02.07.2008. The complainant approached the first opposite party through second opposite party with required documents and submitted claim form. The first opposite party refused the claim, stating that, the scheme is not at all commenced for want of required number of the members. 8. Considering the material on record, whether any prescribed number of members was necessary, shall have to be decided first. For the complainant, the pamphlet issued by the first opposite party is produced, wherein there is no term or condition regarding particular number of members for the scheme. On the other hand, the first opposite party has produced copy of a pamphlet, wherein there is mention that, for the scheme minimum 50 numbers are necessary. In this regard, it is pointed out that, the pamphlet produced by the complainant is signed by the Manager of the first opposite party, whereas the pamphlet produced by the first opposite party is not signed by anybody. Hence, as submitted, the unsigned copy produced by the first opposite party may be ignored against copy of the pamphlet duly signed by the Manager of the first opposite party. Under the circumstances, prima-facie, it can be said that, for the scheme introduced by the first opposite party, no particular number of members was prescribed initially. 9. It is true, the second opposite party collected certain amount from the Milk Producers towards premium and a sum of Rs.7,400/- was sent to the first opposite party. But, the question would be, whether mere payment of that amount is sufficient to hold that, there is insurance contract or contractual obligations between the parties. To prove that, in fact there was insurance contract, there is no documents such as insurance policy or memorandum of understanding except sending some amount by the second opposite party to the first opposite party. It is true, as could be seen from the documents, second opposite party had sent the amount to the first opposite party and the first opposite party has returned the said amount, which was in deposit stating that, members data and required number of members was not furnished. Even, first opposite party had requested the second opposite party to submit the proposal with details. It goes to show that, except sending the amount, second opposite party even did not forward the proposal and more over, there is no acceptance of the proposal and likewise, there is no insurance contract with the first opposite party. In the absence of the same, the claim of the complainant regarding insurance benefit in respect of death of his mother, cannot be entertained and complainant is not entitled to any reliefs. Accordingly, following order: ORDER 1. The Complaint is dismissed. 2. There is no order as to costs. 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 14th June 2010) (A.T.Munnoli) President (Y.V.Uma Shenoi) Member (Shivakumar.J.) Member




......................Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi
......................Sri A.T.Munnoli
......................Sri. Shivakumar.J.