Reliance Life Insurance Co.Ltd.,Rep by its Chief Operating Officer ,Door No.6-1-231,VDO's Colony ,Khammam Reliance Life Insurance Co.Ltd., REp by its Executive Claims ,6th Floor Reliance H.No.6,Haddows Road ,Nungambakkam ,Chennai Mr.NArendra BAbu,C.C.E Reliance Life Insurance Co.Ltd., ING Vysya Bank ,Gandhi Chowk ,Khammam Town and District
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 9th day of November, 2010 CORAM: 1. Sri Vijay Kumar, B.Com., LL.B., President 2. Smt. V. Vijaya Rekha, B.Sc. B.L., Member 3. Sri.R.Kiran Kumar, B.Sc., LL.B., Member C.C.No.130 of 2010 Between: Mulagapati Ahalya, w/o.late Venkata Ramana Rao, R/o.Kistaram village, Sathupalli Mandal, Khammam District. Complainant And 1. Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its Chief operating officer, D.No.6-1-231, VDOs colony, Khammam 2. Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its Executive Claims, 6th floor Reliance H.No.6, Haddows road, Nungambakkam, Chennai. 3. Mr.Narendra Babu, C.C.E., Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., D.No.2-3-37/138, 1st floor, ING Vysya Bank, Gandhi Chowk, Khammam Town and District. Opposite parties. This C.C. is coming on before this Forum for final hearing in the presence of Sri.T.Nagarjuna, Advocate for complainant and of Sri.G.Sita Rama Rao, Advocate for opposite parties; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Forum passed the following:- ORDER (Per Sri.Vijay Kumar, President) This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is wife of late Mulagapati Venkata Ramana Rao, who died on 14-1-2009. During his life time, Mulagapati Venkata Ramana Rao has taken policy under Automatic Investment plan vide policy No.10859673 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. The term of policy is 15 years and the date of commencement was 28-7-2007. He had regularly paid the premium amounts. The said Mulagapati Venkata Ramana Rao died on 14-1-2009 due to heart attack, leaving behind the complainant as his nominee. Immediately the complainant had informed the death of her husband to the opposite parties and after obtaining the death certificate from Medical Health Department, G.P.Kistaram on 4-2-2009, submitted death claim intimation on 5-2-2009 along with relevant documents. Subsequently the opposite parties asked to file some more documents. Accordingly she gave all the required documents to opposite party No.3 who in turn sent the same to opposite party No.2. But the opposite parties did not settle the death claim of her husband. The complainant waited with a fond hope that the opposite parties would settle the death claim of her husband. Vexed with the attitude of opposite parties, finally on 14-10-2009 the complainant got issued a legal notice demanding the opposite parties to settle the death claim of her husband. The opposite parties No.1and 3 have acknowledged the said notice, but they neither gave reply nor settled the claim of her husband. The opposite parties have intentionally and wantonly harassed the complainant, due to which she became mentally and physically upset. This act on the part of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint. Apart from the complaint, she also got filed an affidavit, reiterating the contents of the complaint and also filed the following documents. i) Photocopy of statement of account dt.7-8-2007 issued by the opposite party No.1. ii) Photocopy of receipt, dt.28-7-2007 issued by the opposite parties. iii) Photocopy of Death claim intimation to the opposite party No.1, dt.5-2-2009 iv) Photocopy of certificate of death, dt.4-2-2009 v) Office copy of legal notice, dt.14-10-2009 vi) Postal receipts (3 Nos.) and postal Ack.Nos.(2) vii) Letter dt.13-3-2009 addressed by the Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai. Having received the notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed counter. In the counter all the averments of the complaint are admitted in toto. It is submitted in the counter that the complainant failed to comply with the requisitions for evaluating the death claim and in absence of requisite documents the opposite party was constrained to keep the claim on hold for want of documents. It is further submitted in the counter that the death claim has not been repudiated and there is no deficiency in service on their part and the claim has not been repudiated however it is kept on hold for the want of documents and prayed to dismiss the complaint. Both the parties filed written arguments. During the course of enquiry, the learned counsel for complainant filed claim form-B Medical Attendant Certificate and the same is marked as Ex.A.1. Heard both sides. Perused the oral and documentary evidence. Upon which the points that arose for consideration are, 1) Whether the complainant is entitled to the amount covered under the policy? 2) To what relief? Point No.1: As per the contents of the counter, all the averments made in the complaint are admitted in toto. The claim of the complainant has not been settled on the ground that the complainant failed to comply with the requisitions for evaluating the death claim and in absence of requisite documents the opposite party was constrained to keep the claim on hold for want of documents. The death claim has not been repudiated. Except for want of particular document, other averments have been admitted. It is admitted by the opposite parties that the complainant is wife of late Mulugupati Venkata Ramana Rao, who was the policyholder. It is also admitted that during his lifetime he has taken Automatic Investment plan policy No.10859673 by paying the annual premium amount of Rs.12,000/-. It is also not in dispute that sum assured is Rs.3,00,000/-. It is also not in dispute that the late Mulugupati Venkata Ramana Rao has expired on 14-1-2009. It is also not in dispute that immediately after the death of Mulugupati Venkata Ramana Rao, the complainant informed the opposite parties about his death. The only dispute is that complainant failed to produce the required document. It is also not in dispute that the complainant is a nominee in the said policy. The claim has not been repudiated by the opposite parties but kept on hold for want of document. On the other hand the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued and submitted that issuance of legal notice to the opposite parties and the acknowledgement of the said notice clearly establishes that the intention of the opposite parties to drag on the proceedings without settling her claim. Had the opposite parties settled the death claim of her husband, the complainant had no necessity to issue legal notice and to file the complaint. Even though the complainant has taken all necessary steps for settlement of death claim by sending relevant document, even then the claim was not settled. This act itself amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. However, during the course of enquiry, the claim form - B, Medical Attendance certificate is filed and marked as Ex.A.1. According to which, it is issued by the attending doctor, who is the registered medical practitioner. According to Ex.A.1, Mulugupati Venkata Ramana Rao, the husband of the complainant died due to heart attack on 14-1-2009. Now, it is clear that the opposite parties have received all the documents, which they demanded, yet claim of the complainant has not been settled by the opposite parties for want of this particular document. Having filed this document, now we do not find any hesitation by the opposite parties to settle the death claim of Mulugupati Venkata Ramana Rao. Accordingly the complaint is fit to be allowed. In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) covered under the policy bearing No. 10859673 together with interest at 9% P.A. from the date of filing of complaint till the date of payment. There is no order as regards to compensation and costs. Dictated to the steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum on this 9th day of November, 2010. PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM KHAMMAM Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined for complainant: - None- Witnesses examined for opposite parties: - None- Exhibits marked for complainant: Ex.A.1 - Claim form-B Medical Attendant Certificate Exhibits marked for opposite parties : - Nil - PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM KHAMMAM
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
