BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : WARANGAL
Present: Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu,
President.
Sri N.J. Mohan Rao,
Member
And
Smt. V.J. Praveena,
Member.
Thursday, the 15th day of May, 2008.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 31/2007.
Between:
Kurman Kumara Swamy,
S/o Komuraiah, Age: 30 yrs,
Occ: Hamali, R/o Nallabelli Village,
Wardhannapet Mandal,
Now at Gareebpet of Gorrekunta Village,
Geesugonda Mandal,
Warangal District.
… Complainant
AND
1. Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Rep. By its Branch Manager,
Warangal –II.
2. Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Rep. By its Zonal Manager,
Zonal Office, Jeevan Bhagya,
Saifabad, Hyderabad – 500 063.
… Opposite parties.
Counsel for the Complainant : Sri. M. Gattaiah, Advocate
Counsel for the Opposite Parties : Sri J.J. Ratnam, Advocate.
This complaint coming for final hearing before this Forum, the Forum pronounced the following Order.
ORDER
Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu, President.
This is a complaint filed by the complainant K. Kumara Swamy against the Opposite parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to pay Rs.3,00,000/- towards policy amount and Rs.10,000/- towards damages.
The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:
The complainant is the husband of Kuruman Komala (herein after referred to as the deceased. The deceased during her life time insured her life with Opposite party No.1 under Jeevan Anand (with profits, accident benefits), worth Rs.1,00,000/- vide policy No.686558810 dated 28-02-2003 and the complainant is the nominee for the said policy. On 12-03-04 at about 16.00 hours, the deceased was cooking food on kerosene stove, all of sudden the said stove burst due to which the flames attacked the wife of the complainant, noticing the same the complainant covered his wife with lungee to set off the flames. The complainant shifted his wife to MGM hospital, Warangal where she undergone treatment as inpatient from 12-3-04 to 16-3-04 and on 16-3-04 at 11.00 hours she succumbed to the burn injuries. After the death of the deceased, the complainant requested to supply the claim form claiming the policy amount. But Opposite party No.1 refused to pay the premium amount already paid only and refused to pay the interest and benefits and directed the complainant to approach Zonal office. Inspite of making trips and rounds to the offices of Oppsite parties, they are postponing in payment of the policy amount. Hence, he filed this complaint before this Forum.
Opposite party filed the written Version contending in brief as follows:
It is true that the deceased K. Komala the wife of the complainant had taken insurance policy from Opposite parties for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- policy issued on 9-4-03 and the date of commencement is 28-02-2003 under Jeevan Anand Policy plan with premium paid period 20 years, half yearly mode of payment of premium. Further they stated that the assured K. Komala suffered burn injuries due to burst of kerosene stove in the kitchen of her house i.e., at a place other than a public place on 12-3-2004 and died of burns on 16-3-04 while on treatment at MGM Hospital, Warangal. As per Insurance, it is clear that the policy holder died not in a public place. When she died not in public place certainly the insurance company is liable to pay premium amount to the complainant.
The complainant in support of his claim, filed his Affidavit and Affidavit of witness in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of Opposite parties, V. Rama chandram, filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.B-1 to B-6.
Now the point for consideration whether the complainant is entitled for grant of amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, damages of Rs.10,000/- and costs.
The case of the complainant is that on 12-03-04 at about 16.00 hours, while the wife of the complainant Smt.Kuruman Komala was cooking food on Kerosene stove all of sudden the said stove brust due to which the flames attacked the wife of the complainant, immediately raising hue and cry, noticing the same he covered his wife with his lungee to set of the flames. Immediately the complainant shifted his wife to MGM hospital, Warangal where she undergone treatment as in-patient from 12-3-04 to 16-3-04 at about 11.00 hours she succumbed to the burn injuries in MGM Hospital, Warangal. After the death of deceased, he disclosed the same to the Police, and the police Geesugonds, registered a case in Cr.No.23 of 2004 u/s 174 of Cr.P.C. and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased. The complainant being the husband and nominee for the said policy is entitled for the policy amount of Rs.1,00,000/- vide Policy NO.686558810 dt,28-02-03 and he is the nominee of her wife for the said policy. Thereafter the complainant approached the Opposite party No.1 explained about the death of his wife and requested to supply the necessary claim forms claiming the policy amount as per the terms and conditions of the policy, but Opposite party No.1 informed the complainant to pay the premium amount already paid only and refused to pay the interest and benefits but simply directed the complainant to approach the Zonal office and Opposite party No.1 is postponing the matter on one or the other pretext. After issuing legal notice to Opposite party No.1 then he filed this complaint before this Forum for grant of Rs.3,00,000/-.
Opposite parties filed the Written Version stating that it is true that the deceased K. Komala the wife of the complainant had taken insurance policy from Opposite parties for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- policy issued on 9-4-03 and the date of commencement is 28-02-2003 under Jeevan Anand Policy plan with premium paid period 20 years, half yearly mode of payment of premium.
Further they stated that the assured K. Komala suffered burn injuries due to burst of kerosene stove in the kitchen of her house i.e., at a place other than a public place on 12-3-2004 and died of burns on 16-3-04 while on treatment at MGM Hospital, Warangal. As per Insurance, it is clear that the policy holder died not in a public place. When she died not in public place certainly the insurance company is not liable to pay premium amount to the complainant. As per clause 4 (b) of the premium it shows that “Notwithstanding anything within mentioned to the contrary it is hereby declared and agreed that in the event of death of the Life Assured occurring as a result of intentional self-injury, suicide or attempted suicide, insanity, accident other than an accident in a public place or murder at any time on or after the date on which the risk under this policy has commenced but before the expiry of three years from the date of this policy the corportion’s liability shall be limited to the sum equal to the total amount of premiums if any paid under this policy without interest”.
So as per this, if the policy holder died other than the public place certainly she is not entitled. In this case the policy holder K. Kommala suffered burn injuries due to burst of kerosene stove in the kitchen of her house at a place other than a public place on 12-03-04 and died of burns on 16-03-04 while on treatment at MGM Hospital, Warangal. The First Information Report Ex.B-4, Panchanama Report Ex.B-5 and Post Mortem Examination Report Ex.B-6 clearly goes to show that the decease died in other place than the public place in her house while she was cooking food the kerosene stove was burnt and she died with burn injuries. When this clause clearly stated that when the policyholder died other than the public place certainly the insurance company is not liable to pay the policy amount to the nominee of the deceased. So in this case she died other than public place, certainly she is not entitled to get the policy amount from the Opposite parties. Hence, we answered this point accordingly in favour of Opposite parties against the complainant.
Point No.2: To what relief: The first point is decided in favor of Opposite parties against the complainant, this point also is decided in favour of Opposite parties against the complainant.
In the result there are no merits in the complaint filed by the complainant and accordingly the same is dismissed, but without costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, today, the 15th May, 2008)
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Member Member President,
District Consumer Forum, Warangal.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
On behalf of Complainant On behalf of Opposite Party
Affidavit of complainant filed Affidavit on behalf of O.P. filed.
EXHIBITS MARKED
On behalf of complainant
- Ex.A-1 Xerox copy of FIR.
- Ex.A-2 complaint from Rambhadru to S.I. of Police, Geesugonda.
- Ex.A-3 Xerox copy of Inquest report.
- Ex.A-4 Xerox copy of Post Mortem Report.
- Ex.A-5 Letter by Opposite party to complainant, dt.31-03-2004.
- Ex.A-6 Letter fro Complainant to Opposite party No.2.
On behalf of Opposite party.
1. Ex.B-1 is the proposal review slip.
2. Ex.B-2 Policy issued by Opposite party.
3. Ex.B-3 Proposal clause No.4(b)
4. Ex.B-4 Attested copy of First Information Report.
5. Ex.B-5 Attested copy of Inquest report.
6. Ex.B-6 Attested copy of Post Mortem Examination Report.
Sd/-
President.
