F.A.No. 24  OF 2009 AGAINST C.C.NO.141 OF 2008 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-I VISAKHAPATNAM

Between

Pothala Kondamma W/o late P.Kanna Rao
Hindu, aged 50 years, R/o D.No.31-19-69
Venkateswarametta, Visakhapatnam

                                                                                                Appellant/complainant                                 

        A N D

1. The Manager,
   Life Insurance Corporation of India,
   Seethammadara, Visakhapatnam-013
2. Divisional Railway manager,
   East Coast Railway, Dondaparty
   Visakhapatnam-016
                                                                                           Respondents/opposite parties

Counsel for the Appellant              Sri Dr.P.P.Ramayya

Counsel for the Respondent No.1   Sri K.Venkatesh Gupta
Counsel for the Respondent No.2   Sri V.Rajeshwar Rao

 QUORUM:                 SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER

&

                            SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

                          TUESDAY THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY

                                            TWO THOUSAND TEN

Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
                                    ***

The appeal emanates from the order in C.C.No.141/08 on the file of District Forum-I, Visakhapatnam.

The facts of the case are that the husband of the complainant during his life time obtained Endowment Insurance Policy for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for a period of 10 years. The husband of the complainant opted for Voluntary Retirement from service on 26.7.1971 and he died on 23.11.2001. The 2^nd Opposite party neglected to pay the premium.  The 1^st Opposite party had not informed the complainant about the non-payment of the premium. The Opposite parties refused to pay sum assured where on the complainant has got issued Legal Notice for which a reply was tendered by the opposite party that the complainant would be heard later.

The 1^st Opposite party remained exparte.

The 2^nd Opposite party contested claim denying the material allegations of the complaint and contended that there is no privity of contract between the 2^nd Opposite party and the husband of the complainant nor any consideration has been received by them.

The complainant has filed her Affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A8. The 2^nd Opposite party has filed his Affidavit and no documents have been filed on behalf of the Opposite parties.

The District Forum has dismissed the complaint opining that the Insurance policy was not in force at the time of death of the husband of the complainant.

Feeling aggrieved by the Order of the District Forum the complainant has filed the Appeal contending that the Opposite Party No.2 had admitted that the premium was paid regularly conducting from the salary of her husband and the Opposite party No.1 had not chosen to contest her claim. Further, it was stated that the policy was very much in force, in view of the 4^th condition of the terms and conditions of the policy.

Heard the Counsel for the parties.

The point for consideration whether  the impugned order suffers from mis-appreciation of fact or law ?

At the time of hearing, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant had submitted that in terms of condition No.4 of the Insurance Policy the Respondents are duty bound to pay the sum assured since the condition No.4 of the Insurance Policy lays down that after a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of the policy, if the premium is not paid for 6 months and the life assured meets his end, the sum assured would be payable to the nominee, after deducting the sum towards unpaid premiums. The Learned Counsel for the respondents has contended that the appellant had not lodged any claim with the Respondents and in absence of any claim; the respondents cannot be directed to pay the sum assured covered under Insurance policy.

A perusal of the condition No.4 of the Insurance policies would amply support to the contention of Learned Counsel for the appellant. In the absence of any claim forwarded to them through the Respondent No.2 or directly by the Appellant, anomalous situation would arise whereby it would be a hardship for the Respondent No.1 to pay with the benefits of the Insurance policy without there being any claim lodged by the nominee of the Insured. Taking into consideration of the circumstances, we direct the Appellant/Complainant to lodge claim and the Respondent to process the claim submitted by the Appellant.

In the result the appeal is allowed directing the appellant/complainant to lodge claim with the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.1 is directed to process the claim of the complainant immediately on receipt of the same from the complainant.  There shall be no order as to costs.

                                                        MEMBER

MEMBER
     Dt.27.07.2010

KMK*