BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 87/2005 Filed on 11.03.2005

Dated : 16.05.2011

Complainant:

K.M. Sreedevikutty, W/o late K.G. Suresh Kumar, Kolabhagathu Madom, T.C 24/187-1, Near Sastha Temple, Thycaud P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-14.

(By adv. Vazhuthacaud R. Narendran Nair)

Opposite parties:

1. M/s Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd., III Floor, Karimpanal Arcades, Fort, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

   (By adv. Cherunniyoor P. Sasidharan Nair)

    

2. The Senior Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., K.N. Mathew Building, Gandhari Amman Koil Road, Thiruvananthapuram-1.

(By adv. M. Nizamudeen)

This O.P having been heard on 16.04.2011, the Forum on 16.05.2011 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

The complainant's husband late K.G. Suresh Kumar was a subscriber to the Asianet Cable connection with effect from 04.09.1995 with subscriber No. AA 00500150. He was regular in remitting monthly subscription till his death. Being a subscriber to the Asianet cable connection the deceased K.G. Suresh Kumar was covered under the Asianet Privilege Insurance Scheme with the 2^nd opposite party vide policy No. 761400/42/02/00183. In pursuance of which the complainant, as the legal heir and nominee of the deceased K.G. Suresh Kumar submitted a death claim before the 2^nd opposite party with claim No. 761400/42/03 Sl. No. 1. In support of her claim the complainant submitted all available documents along with the claim application. The 1^st opposite party collected monthly payment regularly and directly from the residence of the subscriber. As per the endorsement printed in the bill cum receipts of the 1^st opposite party, monthly payment of every month needs only to be made on or before the 10^th of every month. Initially on 30.07.2003 the complainant submitted the claim before the Area office of the 1^st opposite party along with documents with a request for necessary action. But unfortunately the 1^st opposite party vide Letter No. AT/ACS/NIA-INSR-CLAIM-PROS-2003/4078 dated 05.12.2003 sent to the complainant a copy of letter from the 2^nd opposite party dated 24.11.2003 wherein the deceased was stated as a defaulter of the monthly subscription for the month of June and July 2003 and hence the claim could not be entertained. But vide letter No. AT/MKTG/2003/2748 dated 13.12.2003 the 1^st opposite party categorically confirmed the payment of subscription by the deceased K.G. Suresh Kumar for the month of June and July 2003 as receipts 1285256 and 119539 respectively. The 1^st opposite party further requested the 2^nd opposite party to expedite the claim. But even after getting confirmation regarding payment of subscription for the months of June and July 2003 from the 1^st opposite party, the 2^nd opposite party unjustifiably declined to entertain the claim. Since the claim was unduly repudiated by the 2^nd opposite party, the complainant sent a registered letter dated 01.03.2004 requesting to settle the claim at the earliest. But the 2^nd opposite party has not taken any action on the same. The denial of claim put forward by the complainant, by the opposite party is illegal, improper, unreasonable and violative of policy scheme. Complainant sent a registered legal notice dated 24.08.2004 to the opposite parties to settle the claim. But vide reply notice dated 18.10.2004 the 1^st opposite party unduly declined the claim. Hence this complaint.

The 1^st opposite party in this case is M/s Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. and 2^nd opposite party is the New India Assurance Company Ltd. Both of them filed versions. The 1^st opposite party admitted that the complainant regularly paid the monthly subscription till July 2003. They submitted that the monthly subscription is demanded in advance by the bill raised by 1^st opposite party on 26.06.2003 for Rs. 210/-. The bill is for service availed by the complainant for a period of 01.07.2003 to 31.07.2003 and can be paid either in July/August 2003. The payment has been received by the 1^st opposite party on 09.08.2003 and there is no default in the monthly subscription of July 2003. The 1^st opposite party further submitted that at the time of death, the complainant was not a defaulter in paying the monthly subscription. The 1^st opposite party requested the 2^nd opposite party that the complainant has paid subscription amount for June 2003 and July 2003 and hence the claim could not be rejected. They further stated that the complainant suffered mental agony, hardships and injuries only because of the acts of the 2^nd opposite party and the 1^st opposite party has no responsibilities on it.

In the version the 2^nd opposite party stated that the complainant is not a consumer of the 2^nd opposite party and the complainant has not hired any service from the opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party had not committed any deficiency in service. The 2^nd opposite party submitted that the complainant herself admitted that as per the endorsement printed in the bill cum receipt of the 1^st opposite party, monthly payment of every month needs to be made on or before 10^th of every month. Mr. K.G. Suresh Kumar died on 17.07.2003. Payment for the month of July 2003 should have been done before 10^th of that month. However, payment for the month of July was made only on 09.08.2003 vide receipt No. AO 1747155 after the death of Mr. K.G. Suresh Kumar. Therefore the deceased was a defaulter in paying the monthly subscription and hence the insurance cover will automatically cease and will not be applicable. The 2^nd opposite party further stated that the insurance scheme being a free complimentary service from the insurer/Asianet Privilege Enrolment scheme the subscriber is not competent to make any claim violating the terms and conditions of the scheme. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

In this case complainant and 2^nd opposite party filed proof affidavits and the complainant was examined as PW1 and documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P9. The complainant was cross examined by the 1^st opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party has not cross examined the complainant. Hence the affidavit filed by the complainant remains unchallenged. The 1^st opposite party is supporting the complainant in all aspects. 2^nd opposite party was examined as DW1 and 5 documents were marked as Exts. D1 to D5.

Points to be ascertained :

1. Whether the claim repudiated by the 2^nd opposite party is valid or not?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the benefit covered under Asianet Privilege Insurance Scheme?

3. Compensation and costs.

Points (i) to (iii):- The complainant's husband K.G. Suresh Kumar died in an accident on 17.07.2003. The deceased K.G. Suresh Kumar took the Asianet Cable connection with effect from 04.09.1995. He regularly paid remitted the monthly subscription till his death. Being a subscriber to the Asianet cable connection late K.G. Suresh Kumar was covered under Asianet Privilege Insurance Scheme with 2^nd opposite party. The claim was repudiated by the 2^nd opposite party on the ground that complainant is a defaulter. So the complainant preferred this complaint before this Forum. In the version the 1^st opposite party specifically made it clear that there is no default in the monthly subscription of July 2003. The insurance of contract is between the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party. The 1^st opposite party almost supported the averments and pleadings of the complainant. The main contention of the 2^nd opposite party is that, as per the endorsement printed in the bill cum receipt of the 1^st opposite party, monthly payment of every month needs to be made on or before 10^th of every month. Mr. K.G. Suresh Kumar died on 17.07.2003. Payment for the month of July 2003 should have been done before 10^th of that month. But the payment for the month of July Rs. 210/- was made only on 09.08.2003 vide receipt No. AO 1747155 after the death of Mr. K.G. Suresh Kumar, hence insurance cover will automatically cease and will not be applicable. But the 1^st opposite party stated that the complainant has regularly paid the subscription till July 2003. 1^st opposite party further stated that the monthly subscription of Rs. 210/- is demanded in advance by the 1^st opposite party on 26.06.2003 i.e; Ext. D5. The bill is for service availed by the complainant for a period of 01.07.2003 to 31.07.2003 and can be paid either in July/August. The payment has been received by the 1^st opposite party on 09.08.2003 and there is no default in the monthly subscription of July 2003. Ext. D5 is the evidence of that payment. In this case the complainant is the subscriber of the 1^st opposite party. Hence it is the right of the 1^st opposite party to decide whether the complainant is a defaulter or not. In this case the 1^st opposite party admitted that the complainant was not a defaulter in paying the monthly subscription. The 1^st opposite party never disconnected the cable connection of the deceased for default in payment of subscription. As per clause 2 of terms and conditions of the Asianet Privilege Insurance Enrolment Scheme (Ext. D1) 'In case of permanent/temporary disconnection or subscriber's default of monthly subscription payment, the insurance cover will automatically cease and will not be applicable. No claim from such disconnected defaulter subscriber shall be entertained'. In this case the complainant has paid the subscription for the month of July 2003 as per Ext. D5 document. In that document there is a foot note that “Please make the payment on or before 10^th of every month”. That is not a condition or strict instruction, but only a request. Nowhere in the document stated that otherwise connection will be disconnected. From the above said discussions, we find that the deceased K.G. Suresh Kumar was not a defaulter at the time of his death. Hence the complainant is entitled to get the benefit under the Asianet Privilege Insurance Scheme. We find that there is deficiency in service from the side of 2^nd opposite party in not settling the death claim submitted by the complainant. In this case the complainant has no claim against the 1^st opposite party. The relief and compensation is sought only against the 2^nd opposite party, the insurance company. Complainant has not suffered any loss or deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party. Hence 1^st opposite party is exonerated from liability. The 2^nd opposite party is liable to pay the insured amount as per the insurance scheme to the complainant. Hence the complaint is allowed.

In the result, the 2^nd opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant with 9% annual interest from 24.11.2003 and the 2^nd opposite party shall pay Rs. 2,000/- as costs. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order, otherwise the above said entire amount shall carry 12% annual interest till the date of realization. 1^st opposite party is exonerated from liability.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 16^th day of May 2011.

Sd/- BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

O.P. No. 87/2005

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Sreedevi

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of connection fee-provisional receipt No. 3038 dated

24.09.1995.

P2 - Copy of the letter dated 30.07.2003 issued from the

complainant

P3 - Copy of the letter dated 24.11.2003 addressed to 1^st opposite

party.

P4 - Copy of the letter dated 05.12.2003 addressed to the

complainant

P5 - Copy of the letter dated 13.12.2003 addressed to 1^st opposite

party.

P6 - Copy of the Bill-cum-receipt dated 26.06.2003

P7 - Copy of the letter issued from the complainant dated 01.03.04

P8 - Copy of advocate notice dated 24.08.2004

P9 - Copy of the letter dated 18.10.2004 issued from the 2^nd

opposite party.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

DW1 - Joy Joseph

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Copy of the privilege insurance enrolment form

D2 - Copy of the letter dated 24.11.2003 addressed to 1^st opposite party.

D3 - Copy of the letter dated 09.09.2004 addressed to complainant

D4 - Copy of Bill-cum receipt dated 26.07.2003.

D5 - Copy of the Bill-cum-receipt dated 26.06.2003

Sd/-

PRESIDENT