IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 396/09 DATED 08.12.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Smt.Chikkamma, <br /> W/o Chikkegowda @ Belluthu, Bonthagally village, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District.<br /> <br /> (By Sri.Sudharshan, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party The Manager, LIC of India, Branch-II, B.M.Road, Bannimantap, Mysore.<br /> <br /> (By Smt.M.S.Savithri, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 17.07.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 07.08.2009<br /> Date of order : 09.12.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 4 MONTH 2 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite party, seeking a direction to pay the policy amount of Rs.50,000/- with other benefits and so also, compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of the proceedings.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint it is alleged that, son of the complainant by name Swamy had New Janaraksha Policy obtained on 18.09.2008. On 22.09.2008, the opposite party has issued the receipt for having received the premium of Rs.1,543/- and so also, the policy bond. On 22.09.2008 at 5.00 pm, Swamy died due to cow stabbing, who fell into Varuna Canal. Complainant is the mother and nominee of the deceased. On 28.10.2008, the complainant approached the opposite party for benefits of the policy, but, the opposite party has not paid the amount. A legal notice was sent to the opposite party, which has been replied. The opposite party not acted properly and hence, there is deficiency in service. Also, opposite party caused mental agony to the complainant. On these grounds, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The opposite party in the version has denied that, Swamy had obtained the policy on 18.09.2008. It is contended that, on the said date, proposal was submitted. The policy has been issued on 22.09.2008. First premium was paid on the said date. Date of commencement of the policy was 22.09.2008. It is denied that, Swamy died on 22.09.2008. In fact, he died on 21.09.2008, a day prior to the issuance of the policy. To make unlawful gain, on 22.09.2008 the complainant has paid the premium and if the date of death was revealed, the opposite party could not have issued the policy on dead person, as the life assured died on 21.09.2008. There was no concluded contract. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 4. To prove the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant has filed her affidavit and certain documents are produced. On the other hand, for the opposite party Administrative Officer by name A.R.Mahesh has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. For the opposite party, a witness who is working as Village Accountant, has been examined and certain documents are got exhibited. We have heard the arguments of the learned advocate for the complainant as well as of the opposite party. Also, we have perused the entire records.<br /> <br /> 5. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that she is entitled to any reliefs?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the negative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point no. 1:- Certain facts are admitted. Only dispute is, the date of death of the insured.<br /> <br /> 8. Admittedly, insurance policy was issued on 22.09.2008. On that date the first premium has been paid. The policy and the receipt are on record. So far concerned to these facts, there is no dispute.<br /> <br /> 9. The complainant has alleged in the complaint, that on 22.09.2008, the policy holder Swamy died. That fact is stated by the complainant in her affidavit. To substantiate that fact, death certificate issued by the Village Accountant is produced by the complainant at Ex.C.1. In this Ex.C.1, which is duly sealed and signed by the Village Accountant, date of death is mentioned as 22.09.2008.<br /> <br /> 10. On the other hand, the opposite party while replying the legal notice of the complainant, stated that the date of death is, 21.09.2008. That fact is pleaded in the version. So also, Mr.A.R.Mahesh in 6th paragraph of his affidavit has stated on oath that, the deceased life assured died on 21.09.2008. To substantiate this fact, the opposite party has produced death certificate duly sealed and signed by the Village Accountant at Ex.R.3. In this Ex.R.3, the date of death of Swamy is mentioned as 21.09.2008.<br /> <br /> 11. As noted above, according to the complainant, the date of death of Swamy is 22.09.2008. Whereas the opposite party contend, the date of death is 21.09.2008. Considering this rival contentions and the documents, on the application of the opposite party, the Forum had summoned the Village Accountant to produce the register and so also, to give evidence. Accordingly, the Village Accountant has produced the register containing death reports of the said village at Ex.R.1. The relevant report of Mr.Swamy is at Ex.R.1(a). In this Ex.R.1(a), the date of death of Swamy is mentioned as 21.09.2008.<br /> <br /> 12. Hence, from the oral and documentary evidence noted above, the Village Accountant who has been examined before the Forum has deposed as per the entry in the register, the date of death of Swamy is 21.09.2008. However, he has admitted issuance of the death certificates to the complainant as well as to the opposite party at Ex.C.1 and Ex.R.3. From the evidence of the Village Accountant, it is clear that, on the basis of Ex.R.1(a), he has issued the death certificates at Ex.C.1 and Ex.R.3. However, so far concerned to mention of date of death in Ex.C.1, the witness has stated that, through mistake, the date is mentioned as 22.09.2008. But, scrutinizing the entire facts and the evidence, said statement of the witness cannot be believed and accepted. He is the Village Accountant of the said village. The deceased died due to cow stabbing, who fell in canal. It must be a news in the village. Irrespective of the fact that the Village Accountant may be aware of the date of death or otherwise, atleast he must have come to know about incident. The date of commencement of policy as well as payment of the insurance premium is 22.09.2008. It is the crucial date to make claim of the policy amount of the deceased. Ex.C.1 has been issued by the Village Accountant to the complainant. Taking into consideration of these facts, particularly date of commencement of the policy, as well as payment of the first premium, we are of the opinion that, the statement of the Village Accountant that the date mentioned in Ex.C.1 is through over sight, cannot be believed. The witness in his statement has specifically stated that, looking into the original death report at Ex.R.1(a), he has issued the said certificate. As noted here before, in Ex.R.1(a), the date of death of deceased is mentioned as 21.09.2008. When the Village Accountant issued the death certificate looking into the original report, his statement that through mistake, the date of death of mentioned as 22.09.2008, far away from truth. <br /> <br /> 13. In Ex.R.3, on the date of death of the deceased, there is yellow mark and thereon, there is plastic sticker. In this regard, though there is no explanation from the side of the opposite party, what we infers is that, after opposite party obtaining the death certificate, in view of the claim made by the present complainant, to highlight the date of death that must have been marked and further, so as the said date cannot be changed or altered sticker has been affixed. Except this, there is no scope for other inference. That can not be taken that, the opposite party has manipulated the said date. Because, as noted above, this Ex.R.3 has been issued by the Village Accountant on the basis of Ex.R.1(a), wherein the same date of death is mentioned and that fact is also deposed by the witness on oath before the Forum. Moreover, it is not the contention of the complainant that, said date in Ex.R.3 has been manipulated by the opposite party.<br /> 14. After the opposite party filed version and produced certain documents, it appears that, the complainant realized the mistake on her part regarding the date of death and hence, to over come the situation, for the complainant along with the memo dated 07.09.2009, Xerox copy of certificate of death of the deceased Swamy is produced at Ex.F.1. In this Ex.F.1, the date of death is mentioned as 21.09.2007. In this regard, the Village Accountant who has been examined has stated that, while obtaining Xerox copy instead of the year 2008, the year as 2007 has been manipulated. As found from the records noted here before, the date of death of the deceased is 21.09.2008. It is nobodies case that, deceased died on 21.09.2007. As noted above, the complainant considering the defence must have realized that in case if it is found that, the date of death is 22.09.2008, she may not succeed and hence, she got manipulated the Xerox copy of the death certificate showing the year as 2007, so as to contend that, a year back, the deceased died. But, the complainant committing such mistake, it appears did not understand that, when the death was in the year 2007, in the year 2008 deceased could not have taken policy.<br /> <br /> 15. It is the definite contention of the opposite party that, deceased died on 21.09.2008 and the complainant to make unlawful gains has paid premium on 22.09.2008. The original receipt having paid the premium is on record. On the said receipt, in place of signature of the payee, something like letters “Sa” is written. The signature of the deceased Swamy is available on the proposal form. He has signed in Kannada as “Swamy”. Hence, it is clear that, signature on the receipt is not of Swamy. Hence, safely it can be concluded that, Swamy has not signed on the said receipt. Because, he was not alive on that date.<br /> <br /> 16. The complainant has produced death ceremony invitation. Wherein, the date of death is mentioned as 22.09.2008. But, to prove the same, there is no evidence. In view of other documents on record, the date of mentioned therein, cannot be accepted. When the complainant has manipulated the Xerox copy of the death certificate and was able to manage to obtain the death certificate mentioning the date of death as 22.09.2008 must have also manipulated the said invitation card, particularly in view of the fact that, on the very next day of the death, first premium amount has been paid. <br /> <br /> 17. Considering the facts on record, the date of death of deceased Swamy is 21.09.2008 as shown in the original register at Ex.R.1(a) and Ex.R.3. On the other hand, the death certificate produced by the complainant at Ex.C.1 and Ex.F.1 are false and created. The same have been created by the complainant just to put forth false claim of the policy amount. At the same time, prima-facie it has been established that, the Village Accountant Sri Y.L.Devaraj who has been examined before the Forum has issue false death certificate to the complainant to help her to make false claim. In this regard, the Forum will consider to initiate proceedings in accordance with law seperately. However, at this stage, we feel it just to direct the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya to take action against the said Village Accountant for issuing false death certificate.<br /> <br /> 18. Since, the commencement of the policy is on 22.09.2008 and the deceased Swamy died on 21.09.2008 a day earlier, the complainant is not entitled to the amount claimed in the complaint.<br /> <br /> 19. Accordingly we answer the point in negative.<br /> <br /> 20. Point No. 2:- Considering the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order:- <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-.<br /> 2. The complainant shall pay the said cost, within one month from the date of this order or recovered and out of the said amount, only Rs.1,000/- shall be paid to the opposite party and remaining amount of Rs.4,000/- shall be credited to the Legal Aid Account of this Forum. <br /> 3. A letter shall be addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya along with attested copies of Ex.C.1, Ex.R.1(a) and order copy of this order to take action against Sri.Y.L.Devaraj, Village Accountant of Chikkankanahally village for having issued false certificate at Ex.C.1.<br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 9th December 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />