BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER WARANGAL

Present:       Sri                                                                                                Sri                                                                                      AND

          Friday the 16^th May, 2008.

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 06/2007

Between:

D.Krishna Murthy,

S/o. Age: 34 yrs., R/o.H.No.2-7-116/1,

Alipura, Warangal District.

… Complainant

AND

1.  The Manager,

          Branch-II,

     Station Road,

     Warangal.                                                                   …  Deleted

2.  The Reliance life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

          Unit 31, III Floor, Lloyds Centre Point Building,

     A     

… Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Complainant               : Sri. 

Counsel for the Opposite   No.2   : Sri. Y.

This complaint coming for final hearing before this Forum, the Forum pronounced the following Order.

                                               : ORDER  ::

Sri

  towards compensation for mental agony and monitory loss, Rs.10,000/- towards and throughout the case and any other relief or relieves.

 

          The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:

 

01.     The case of the complainant is that, during the life time of the complainant’s mother     AMP SANMAR.  She took the policy under “  The opposite party No.1 is authorised party of A.M.P.   Thereafter his mother during her life time, she made the said policy with AMP SANMAR and the complainant being son is the nominee to the said policy and he do not know about the policy to mother of the complainant was not disclosed about that, unfortunately the mother of the complainant died on 03-09-2004 at 5.00 P.M. with severe heart attack.  Thereafter for the month of March, 2006 the complainant was intimated by the opposite party that the opposite party has acquired AMP SANMAR and thereafter it is known as Reliance Special Endowment Plan No.10051733 and also mentioned in that intimation letter that except the name the terms and conditions in the contract bearing the above number remain unaltered, by this letter only the complainant has came to know about policy and its existence and enclosed death certificate of mother of the complainant and after receiving the above reply the opposite party has chosen to evade the policy benefits to the complainant by reason got lapsed on 30-06-2004 but after trace out the said policy and its receipts, the complainant found that, the premiums were paid up to 30-12-2004 vide its receipt No.13529 dated 30-09-2004 bearing total amount of Rs.17,315/- along with penalty charges Rs.250/-, hence it is crystal clear that, the death of complainant’s mother, so the question of lapse and denial by the opposite party cannot arise and it is not a proper and justified cause.  Thereafter the opposite party issued intimation letter to the

complainant, then the complainant reply letter written by him, the opposite party No.2 against the opposite party No.1, the case is withdraw has not best by the complainant, so only the case against opposite party No.2. 

 

Opposite Party No.2 filed the Written Version contending in brief as follows:

 

 

03.     The opposite party No.2 stated in the Written Version stating that, the deceased life insured paid only first quarterly premium on 30-03-2004.  Barring this first premium no other premium has been paid on the policy.  Subsequently the said policy lapsed on 30-06-2004.  All due premiums including the premium that was due on 30-12-2004 was paid in advance (at that point of time with interest) vide   The complainant has not produced the copy of the receipt for the payment that was made on 30-09-2004 neither to the second opposite party nor before this st opposite party in associate with the Group Insurance of 2^nd opposite party and the date of birth of Late   In the proposal form pertaining to the policy relating to this matter, the life insured has been mentioned as 10-06-1953 to the complainant is put to strict proof to submit the correct age proof of the Life Assured, further since with regard to after lapse of five (5) months the complainant on 07-08-2006 (Marked as Ex.No.M-3) acknowledging the CEO’s letter dt.:01-03-2006 conveyed the death of the complainant’s mother, which took place on 03-09-2004.  It passes one’s understanding as how the death of the insured person was not informed to the insurer even though the complainant very well knew the existence of policy with the erstwhile AMP SANMAR and the complainant has signed as witness in the declaration of State of Health.  In the instant of the policy holder of the letter dated 07-08-2006 was first information to the 2^nd opposite party.  In the circumstances, the 1-10-2004 insurer released on 19-12-2004.  The opposite party No.2 unaware of the death of the policy holder adjusted the amount of Rs.17,315/- received from the opposite party No.1 taking into consideration the Statement of Good Health completed on 30-09-2004, especially the answer “YES” given to question No.1 reading as “Are you now in good health”?   For the above reasons given by the opposite party No.2 they have not settled this claim and repudiated the same and their request is to dismiss the case.

 

04.     The complainant in support of his claim filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and marked Exs.A-01 to A-08.  On behalf of opposite party Sri

 

05.     Now the point for consideration whether the complainant is the entitled to receive an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from Opposite Party No.2 with interest 18% per annum, Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards costs and other  

06.     After gone through all the documents and the complaint, Written Version of the opposite party No.2, our reasons are like this.  It is true that, in this case the deceased life insured only by the first quarterly premium on 30-03-2004, subsequently from the policy on 30-06-2004 but here the opposite party No.2 stating that already policy was lapsed but as per Ex.A-4 he paid the premium amount of Rs.17,315/- on 30-09-2004  if really policy lapsed, it is the duty of the opposite party No.2 reject the receive the amount paid by the complainant by the opposite party No.2.  But here already as per Ex.A-4 they received entire amount on 30-09-2004 whether it is colluded document or .  This is an admitted fact that the document issued by the opposite party No.2, so on the basis of Ex.A-4 is the deposit acknowledgement receipt to the complainant, it is clear cut that, the opposite party No.2 has received the entire amount, if really the policy is lapsed.  It is their duty to reject the receive the Ex.A-4 amount but here Ex.A-4 clearly goes to show that already the complainant paid entire premium amount to the said policy of the deceased when the opposite party No.2 received the entire premium amount, certainly the opposite party No.2 is liable to pay the premium amount to the complainant.  There is no reason to repudiate the policy amount of the complainant, it is true as per the death certificate i.e. Ex.A-8 the complainant’s mother died on 30-09-2004 it is the reason only I have stated supra.  Ex.A-4 is the colluded document the opposite party No.2 only they should not receive the premium amount from the complainant’s mother or complainant side.  Anyhow already the opposite party No.2 received the premium amount from complainant, it is clear cut that the policy is in force when the policy is in force certainly the opposite party is liable to pay the policy amount to the complainant.

 

          For the foregoing reasons given by us, it is clear that the opposite party No.2 is liable to pay the premium to the complainant.   We answer this point accordingly in

 

 

TO WHAT RELIEF:-

 

 

          The point No.1 decided in  

 

          In the result, we direct the opposite party No.2 to pay an amount of Rs.229-09-2006 till the realisation of the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two   We grant an amount of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) with regard to the costs.  We are not granting any amount towards compensation and mental agony.

 

          The claim against Opposite Party No.1 is dismissed.

 

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today i.e.  16^th May, 2008).

 

                                                                                                                   Member                    President,

       District Consumer Forum, Warangal.

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDNECE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

 

                          ON BEHALF OF O.P.

Affidavit of Complainant                                     Affidavit of Opposite Party

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALFOF COMPLAINANT

 

 

 

1. Ex.A-  is the original AMP 31-12-2003.

 

2. Ex.A-2 is   Original Policy Schedule of

 

3. Ex.A-3 is the Original First Premium Receipt, dated 31-12-2003.

 

4. Ex.A-4 is the Original Deposit Acknowledgement Receipt of AMP 30-09-2004.

 

5. Ex.A-5 is the letter of Reliance Life Insurance, Endorsement to Policy No.10051733.

 

6. Ex.A-6 is the letter to Sri 07-08-2006.

 

7. Ex.A-7 is the Letter to Krishna Murthy Y, Warangal  i.e. Late Mrs. 29-08-2006.

 

8. Ex.A-8 is the Xerox copy of Certificate of Death dated 30-09-2004.

 

ON BEHALF OF Opposite partY No.2

 

1.     Ex.B-1 is the Xerox copy of Declaration of State of Health Form, dated 30-09-2004.

 

2.     Ex.B-2 is the Letter sent to the Complainant by opposite party no.2, dated 01-03-2006.

 

3.     Ex.B-3 is the Letter to the opposite party No.2 by complainant, dated 07-08-2006.

 

4.     Ex.B-4 is the Letter sent to the complainant by opposite party No.2, dated 29-08-2006.