::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
AT BIDAR::
C.C.No. 85/2015
Date of filing : 26/11/2015
Date of disposal : 09/01/2017
P R E S E N T: (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,
B.A., LL.B.,
President.
(2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),
B.A.LL.B.,
Member.
COMPLAINANT/S: Smt. Rashida Begum , w/o Late Sirajoddin,
Dubalgundi, age: 45 years, Occ: House hold,
R/o Ben Chincholli,Tq.Humnabad.
( By Shri.Vijaykumar V.J., Advocate )
VERSUS
OPPONENT/S :- 1. The Chief Manager,
L.I.C. of India, Basavakalyan.
2. The Senior Divisional Manager,
L & H.P.F. Department, Divisional Office,
Raichur.
( By Shri. Basavaraj Udgir, Advocate)
:: J U D G M E N T ::
By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.
This complaint is filed by the above said complainant U/s.12 of the C.P.Act., 1986, against the O.Ps alleging deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps The subject of the case is as under:
2. Complainant is resident of Ben Chincholli, Tq.Humnabad,
Dist.Bidar. The husband of the complainant late Sirajoddin in his life time had obtained two Insurance Policies from the O.P.s namely “Money Back Policy and “Jeevan Anand , policy bearing nos. 663735382 for sum assured of Rs. 1,00,000/- and 663517038 for sum assured Rs. 1,50,000/- the date of commencement of risk(s) are 27-03-2007 and 17-01-2006 respectively and the complainant is the nominee in the said policies. Complainant avers that, the husband of the complainant was hale and healthy at the time of obtaining the said policies. Further the husband of complainant died on 08-07-2007 due to heart attack and thereafter the complainant had approached the O.P for insurance claim on account of the death of her husband. Inspite of several requests by the complainant and issuing legal notice to the O.Ps, the claims have not been settled hence, the complainant is before this Forum claiming total sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- and costs of the proceedings against the O.Ps.
3. After receipt of Court notice the O.Ps have put up appearance through counsel of their choice and filed their written versions therein claiming that, the complaint filed by the complainant against the O.Ps is not tenable either on fact or on legal grounds and O.Ps have further avered that the contents of para no.3 are false as the facts stated therein are away from the real facts. At the time of obtaining the policy the
deceased Sirajuddin was suffering from Cardiac problem and he was regularly consulting the medical professionals and was under treatment. The contents of para no.4 are specifically denied asserting there was no question raising objection by LIC BM or LIC DM at the time of purchase of policy. The proposer i.e. life assured himself has to answer the question in the proposal in correct manner truthfully and disclose all the material information correctly. If they are found incorrect, then as per the policy conditions the LIC is at liberty to repudiate the claim. In present case as there was early death of policy holder and investigation was done and on investigation it was revealed that, the deceased was suffering from cardiac problem at the time of taking policy. The same was not disclosed in his proposal form dated 16-01-2006 for obtaining the policy no.663517038 and proposal form dated 26-03-2007 for obtaining the policy no. 663735382. So based on the fact of suppressionof material facts the O.Ps have rightly repudiated the claim and the contents of para no.5 being the repetition of the facts stated in the above paragraphs need no reply. In reply to the contents of para no.6 it was submitted that, the deceased was suffering from cardiac problem at the time of taking policies the same is evident from the available records of Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital Hyderabad that the O.Ps have submitted.
4. Further O.Ps avered that the complaint filed by the complainant is highly time bared, which is evident from the complaint itself. The admitted facts are that the life assured had purchased the policy in the year 2006 and 2007 and the life assured died on 08-07-2007 itself. After death on the day on which year the complainant has put her claim is not stated in the complaint and on dt. 14-10-2015 the legal notice was issued by the advocate i.e. after 8 years of death which would not save the period of limitation. Apart from this on dt. 28-02-2009 claims of both policies were repudiated. The actual cause of action accrues on the next day of receipt of reply. After that also six years had lapsed and complaint has not whispered about the delay caused for filing the complaint, nor sought permission of the Forum condoning the delay by filing application under the relevant provision, so on this ground itself the complaint is not maintainable. It has been prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
5. Both sides, have filed their evidence affidavits along with documents, written arguments reiterating their respective stands, so also documents listed at the end of this order, distinctly.
6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the following points arise for our consideration:-
- Is the complaint time barred?
- Does the complainant prove that, there has been a deficiency of service in the part of the Opponent?
- Do the O.Ps justify repudiation?
- What order ?
7. Our answers to the points stated above are as follows:-
1. In the affirmative.
2. In the affirmative.
3. In the affirmative
3. As per the final order, for the following:
:: REASONS ::
8. Point no.1: This point has to be considered as the first and foremost, in the face of the stiff opposition from the O.P’s side and then only the other points can be dealt judiciously. In the instant case, the repudiation of the O.Ps had been done on 28/02/2009 ( vide their letter Ex.P.5/Ex.R.3). The complaint has been filed on 26/11/2015, with subsequently tailor made documents. Miserably, there is not even a formal application filed by the complainant for condonation of delay. The case having been filed after more than six years from the date of repudiation stated supra, we find no merit to try this case and hence without pondering over other points dismiss the case as time barred.
There would be no order as to costs and otherwise.
( Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 9th day of January-2017 )
Sd/ Sd/
Sri. Shankrappa H., Sri. Jagannath Prasad,
Member. President.
Documents produced by the complainant
- Ex.P.1- Copy of Proposal Form.
- Ex.P.2- Copy of Death certificate of deceased Sirajoddin.
- Ex.P.3- Copy of Status report of Policy holder deceased Sirajoddin.
- Ex.P.4- Copy of Status report of Policy holder deceased Sirajoddin.
- Ex.P.5-Copy of letter addressed to the Complainant, Dt.28-02-2009.
- Ex.P.6-Copy of Legal notice, Dt.14-10-2015.
- Ex.P.7- Copy of letter addressed to counsel of complainant Dt.20/10/20015
- Ex.P.8- Copy of I.D. of Smt. Riyasattabai.
- Ex.P.9-Correspondence letter by LIC, Basavakalyan.
- Ex.P.10-Letter addressed to K.Arun Kumar, Agent, by LIC,Raichur,Dt.28-02-2009.
Documents produced by the Opponents
1. Ex.R.1- Copy of Proposal Form.
2. Ex.R.2- Copy of Proposal Form.
3. Ex.R.3- Copy of repudiation letter, Dt.28-02-2009.
4. Ex.R.4- Another Copy of repudation letter, Dt.28-02-2009.
5. Ex.R.5- Medical report of Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences,
Hyderabad, Dt.05-01-2007 alongwith bills, prescriptions etc.
Sd/ Sd/
Sri. Shankrappa H., Sri. Jagannath Prasad,
Member. President.
mv.
