Filed On: 14.07.2014
Disposed On: 25.06.2015
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVALLUR
PRESENT . THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M : PRESIDENT
TMT. S. SUJATHA, B.SC., : MEMBER-I
THIRU. V. VENKATESAN, M.A.B.Ed., MBA. M.PHIL.B.L., : MEMBER-II
Thursday, the Day of 25th June – 2015
CC.No.31/2012
P. M. Sairah Banu
Rep by O.A. Varadadesigan
No. 4/8 Sakthinagar 4h Street
Jaethik apartment No. 6 II Floor
Choolaimedu, Chennai -94. …Complainant
-Vs-
The Branch Manager LIC of India
Ambattur Branch 87 North Park Street
Venkatapuram Ambattur
Chennai-53. …Opposite Party
Counsel For Complainant : Party- in Person
Counsel For Opposite Party : Mr. V. RajKumar Joshi, Advocate
The Complaint is coming upon before us finally on 16.06.2015 in the presence of on the side of the complainant who is appeared as party-in-person, and on the side of the Opposite party Mr.V. RajKumar Joshi, Advocate appeared upon hearing arguments on the side of the complainant and perused the documents and evidence, this Forum delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT
District Consumer disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvallur
This Complaint has been filed by the complainant U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the opposite party seeking direction that the opposite party has to pay the insured sum at double being of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest bonus compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost of 10,000/- for the deficiency of service.
The Brief facts of Complaint are as follows:
1. The Complainant is that where Mr. Yaserarafath who is the son of the complainant Mr. P.M. Sairah Banu, made a visit along with a dozen friends and their family to V.G.P. Golden Beach Wonderland at Injambakkam on 15.05.2011, unfortunately a high voltage hanging power wire exposed unprotected brushed against him and out of the shock he died who has insured himself with L.I.C. policy No. 719393383 for Rs. 65,000/- . Therefore the complainant has approached the opposite party to settle the claim as per the terms of the said policy but the opposite party repudiated the same since the said policy is not in existence on the date of death and thereby they committed the deficiency of service.
The averments of the Written Version of the Opposite Party are as brief as follows:
2. The allegation made in the complaint are false and irrelevant. As every month a debit is sent to bank for payment on ‘Pay by date’, there is no need to send a demand notice for monthly premium. Also there is no obligation on the part of the opposite party to collect quarterly premium before first ECS payment as alleged by the complainant. In the present case as per procedures of the opposite party LIC –one initial premium was collected and adjusted for FEB 2011 and for Mar2011 premium collected through ECS mode from the deceased policy holder’s bank M/S Indian Overseas Bank, Villivakkam From S.B. A/C. No. 40788. On the date of death 15.05.2011, the policy is not ‘in force’, as the premium from the month of April 2011 was not paid.
3. There was a demand made for payment of premium of Rs.255/- to the deceased’s banker to pay by the 15th April 2011 and the same was returned on 18.04.2011 with reason’ insufficient fund’. The FIR is nothing but a statement made by the interested party in a police station and the same was recorded by the authority. And PMC is nothing but a brief cause of death. In the FIR it recorded as the deceased died while taking bath under the water tank but stated in the complaint deceased died while drinking water. Even assuming the death of deceased was due to accident, the claim amount is not payable since on date of death 15.05.2011 the policy is not in force. Hence the opposite party rightly repudiated the claim. The opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant. The complaint is vexatious and has no merits and deserves to be dismissed.
3. In order to prove the case of the complainant the proof affidavit filed as evidence and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. While so on the side of the opposite party, the proof affidavit filed and Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 are marked.
4. At this juncture, the main points for determination before this forum is,
(1) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged by the complainant?
(2)To what other relief the complainant is entitled to?
5. Written arguments submitted by both sides. Oral arguments heard in full.
6. Point No. 1:- As per the case of the complainant is that when. Mr. Yaserarafath who is the son of the complainant Mr. P.A. Sairah Banu made a visit along with a dozen friends and their family to V.G.P Golden Beach Wonderland at Injambakkam on 15.5.2011. Unfortunately a high voltage hanging power wire exposed unprotected brushed against him and out of the shock he died who has insured himself with L.I.C policy No. 719393383 for Rs.65,000/-. Thereafter the complainant has approached the opposite party to settle the claim as per the terms of the said policy but the opposite party repudiated the same since the said policy is not in existence on the date of death and thereby they committed the deficiency of service.
7. At the outset, the opposite party stated in the written version that even assuring the death of the deceased was due to accident the claim amount is not payable since on the date of death i.e., on 15.o5.2011, the policy is not in force and therefore it is rightly repudiated the claim and the opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service and hence the complaint is devoid of merits.
8. At this juncture, the duty cast upon this forum, is to decide as to whether the complainant has proved the allegations made in the complaint through the relevant and acceptable manner. First of all, on careful perusal of the proof affidavit, it is learnt that the policy taken by the deceased is Ex.A1 and the Ex.A2 FIR reveals that fact of the causing of death by electrocution and Ex.A3 is the death certificate of the deceased. It is further seen from Ex.A5, the PMC it is crystal clear that the deceased was having injuries of electric burns and stated that the death due to Electrocution. Therefore, it goes without saying, that the death of the deceased was purely due to the accident Ex.A4 is the demand notice issued by the opposite party. Furthermore it is stated by the complainant that the opposite party hastily repudiate the claim without valid reason and the reason as if stated that the policy was not in force on the date of death cannot be accepted. Since they have committed the deficiency of service.
9. In such circumstances, it is learnt from the proof affidavit that the deceased was insured LIC Policy bearing the No. 719393383 in which the monthly premium payable under ECS mode and the acknowledgement letter of the deceased is marked as Ex.B1 and the same accepted by the opposite party and thereby in every month a debit is sent to bank for payment on “pay by date”, there is no need to send a demand notice for monthly premium and as per Ex.B3 it is seen that there was a demand made for payment premium of Rs.255/- to the deceased and banks IOB, Villivakkam from the SB A/c No. 40788 to pay by date 15th April 2011 and the same was returned on 18.04.2011, with reason, as insufficient fund and hence it is stated by the opposite party that the policy of the deceased was not in force on the date of death i.e., on 15.05.2011.
10. From the foregoing other facts and observation the policy taken by the deceased and the death of him due to electrocution are not at all disputed. The only contention is for repudiate the claim mode by the complainant is that, the policy was not in force. Recording this point, on going through the documents Ex.B1 that mode of paying the monthly premium has been opted through ECS from the deceased policy holder’s bank M/S Indian Oversease Bank villivakkam from SB A/c No.40788 if it is so, the deceased has the responsibility to maintain enough balance to pay. But he has failed to keep ECS balance of Rs. 255/- in his Bank account and because of which premium of Rs. 255/- for April 2011 could not be paid. The fact has been clearly seen through Ex.B3. At this point of time, it is rightly pointed out by the opposite party that there is no need to send a demand notice for monthly premium. So, it is crystal clear that as per terms and conditions, the opposite party rightly repudiated the claim and therefore the opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service as alleged with complaint. Hence the decision relied upon by the complainant are not applicable to the facts of this case on hand. Thus the point No.1 is answered accordingly.
11. Point No.2. In view of conclusion arrived in the point No. 1 the complainant is not entitled for any relief or compensation as prayed in the complaint and this point is answered accordingly.
In the Result, this complaint is dismissed. No Costs.
Dictated directly by the president to the Steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the president and pronounced by us in the open forum on this the 25th June – 2015.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER –I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
List of Complainant Documents:
Ex.A1. Dt.10.02.2011 - Xerox Copy of LIC Policy schedule
Ex.A2. Dt.10.05.2012 - Xerox Copy of First Information Report
Ex.A3. Dt.14.07.2011 - Xerox Copy of Death Certificate
Ex.A4. Dt.04.04.2012 - Xerox Copy of LIC Premium demand notice
after death
Ex.A5. Dt.16.05.2011 - Xerox Copy of Post Mortem Report
List of Opposite Parties Documents:
Ex.B1. Dt. - - Xerox copy of ECS Authorization Letter
Ex.B2. Dt.10.02.2011 - Xerox Copy of Policy Schedule
Ex.B3. Dt.02.01.2013 - Xerox Copy of History of Premium
Transaction
Ex.A4. Dt. - - Xerox Copy of IOB Bank Statement
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER –I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
