Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/66/2020

M.Bhaskaran - Complainant(s)

Versus

Road Safty Club Pvt.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sivasubramanian,

24 May 2024

ORDER

Complaint presented on  :17.11.2011    Date of disposal            :14.12.2023

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.           : PRESIDENT

                                         TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,         : MEMBER-I

                                         THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.66/2020

 

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 14th  DAY OF DECEMBER 2023

 

M.Bhaskaran

No.26, Canal Street

Sirkali-609 110                                                              .. Complainant.                                                                    

                                                     ..Vs..

 

1.Road Safety Club pvt ltd.

Rep by its Managing Director

No.1, First Floor, Sambandham Street

G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar

Chennai-600 017

 

2.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd

Rep by its Managing Director

GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada,

Pune-411 006                                                                        ...  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

Counsel for the complainant                      : M/s. K.Sivasubramanian

Counsel for the 1^st Opposite party              :M/s.K.S.Ramakrishnan

Counsel for the 2^nd Opposite party             : M/s.Kumaran

 

 

 

ORDER

THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L., PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under sections 11&12 of the Consumer Protection Act as amended prays to directing the Opposite parties to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for permanent total disability sustained in the road accident on 11.12.2009 and payable under the Group Insurance Scheme extended to the complainant under certificate of insurance of the 2^nd opposite party dated 22.04.2010 together with interest thereon at 24% per annum from date of claim namely 05.05.2010 till the date of payment and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses.

          This complaint filed before DCDRC Chennai South and numbered of CC 330/2011 was transferred to this commission as per the proceedings of the Registrar SCDRC in RC.NoA1/2282/2018 dated 11.09.2018 and renumbered as CC 66/2020

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

         The complainant submits that the 1^st opposite party launched a Road Safety Club Programme and invited members, enrolled on payment of charges. Several schemes were announced and the 1^st opposite party enrolled the complainant as a member in “AMS Classic” Scheme on payment of the necessary charges amounting to Rs.3,125/- Membership Certificate dated 11.07.2003 has been issued to the complainant. The tenure of membership is 96 months. During the said period AMS Classic members are covered under Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme under policies issued in tie up with Insurance Companies. Individual certificates of insurance are also issued to the members covered under the Group Insurance Scheme during the tenure of membership. The membership certificate stipulates the extent of insurance cover and the cover for permanent total disability and permanent partial disability is upto Rs.3Lakhs. The 2^nd opposite party covered the complainant under group personal accident insurance for the period 11.07.2009 to 10.07.2010 and issued certificate of insurance dated 22.04.2010. The certificate of insurance covers the complainant for a sum upto Rs.3Lakhs in case of accident resulting in permanent total disablement/permanent partial disablement. The complainant met with a road accident on 11.12.2009 at Sirkali. While riding his bicycle North-south on the left extreme of the Puthadi Mariamman Koil main road he was knocked down by an Auto rickshaw (pending Registration) driven rashly and negligently from the opposite direction. The disability certificate dated 08.03.2010 issued by the Government Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, K.K.Nagar chennai would disclose that the permanent disability is 70% and that the complaint suffers from paralysis on the right and cannot speak and communicate. In the result the complainant has lost his employment with the Indian Railways. The complainant is confined to bed till date and is not able to talk or write and requires constant care and attention and cannot attend to even basic needs without assistance. Copies of the FIR, Insurance certificates and medical records are filed herewith. In fact the only service rendered by the opposite parties is the insurance coverage under the group accident insurance scheme and the opposite parties cannot be allowed to disown their liability in the manner attempted. The complainant has suffered a permanent total disability. He cannot speak or write and is paralyzed and he requires assistance even to attend to his basic needs. He has lost his employment on account of the accident. The permanent disability is reckoned at 70%. It is also certified that the complainant cannot speak or communicate. The complainant has spent several lakhs on treatment and the medical reports confirm that the disability is permanent and life long. Thus the opposite parties are liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000 under the policy towards compensation for loss and injury caused by the accident. The 1^st opposite party has its principle place of business at chennai. The membership certificate dated 11.07.2003 has been issued at chennai and the certificate of insurance for the period in question has been generated/issued from chennai. Hence this complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY  IN BRIEF:

          It is submitted that this opposite party is a private limited company launched with an object to create risk awareness among the public. The public were encouraged to become members of the road safety club consequent upon which the member will get complementary insurance cover depend upon the type of membership. The 1^st opposite party submit that they are taking the role as intermediary/coordinating between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party and the premiums if any paid by the complainant are made over to the insurance company i.e the 2^nd opposite party and hence the 2^nd opposite party is alone liable to pay or settle the insurance claim amount to the complainant. Once, the insurance company provides the insurance cover the role of this opposite party ends. This Opposite party submits that the 2^nd opposite party is the Insurance Company and as such that they could not deny their liability by making allegation that the group insurance certificate dated 22.04.2010 was a fraudulent and collusive one and at the same time suppressing the fact that a sum of Rs.11,13,555/- is lying with them towards account of credit for and on behalf of this opposite party and also suppressing the understanding between this opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party as to the utilization for the said balance amount. It is to be noted that the 2^nd opposite party had not refunded the said amount to the 2^nd opposite party when especially they take this stand that the tie up with the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party had come to an end with the expiry of July 2008. It is further submitted that the insurance company issued a “Certificate of Insurance” specifically mentioning the name of each member, through this opposite party is “Reflected as insured” the ultimate beneficiary is the member for whose benefit the policy was insured. Therefore there is no deficiency of services on the part of this opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. That the complainant without utilizing the Arbitration clause provided in the terms and conditions of the Road Safety Club Program straightaway approached the District Consumer Forum which is not maintainable and denied deficiency in service.

3.WRITTEN VERSION OF 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY  IN BRIEF:

          There is no privity of contract between the complainant and this opposite party. The certificates of insurance for the periods 11.07.2008 to 10.07.2009 and from 11.07.2009 to 10.07.2010 relied upon by the complainant were not issued by this opposite party but unauthorisedly by a Branch office of the 1^st opposite party. On the basis of the same no right can be claimed by the complainant as against this opposite party. More particularly, the certificate for the period 11.07.2009 to 10.07.2010 has been collusively obtained by the complainant on 22.04.2010 long after the accident alleged to have taken place on 11.12.2009. It is an unauthorized and fraudulent document and no benefit can be claimed under the same. It was further contended that any claim for the benefit under the membership scheme of the the 1^st opposite party can be laid only against the 1^st opposite party and the certificate of insurance dated 22.04.2010 was created ante dating the period of insurance collusively by the complainant and the 1^st opposite party and the relationship between the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties came to an by july 2008 and after that there was insurance policy in force with the 2^nd opposite party and further contended that the 1^st opposite party when confronted admitted the wrongful issue of some certificates by its branch offices and it would bare the responsibility for the same and hence contended that if at all the complainant is entitled any benefit based on membership it is for him to workout his remedy against the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party is no way liable for the same and further stated all correspondences regarding the insurance claim was between complainant and  1^st opposite party and the said claim form was not issued by the 2^nd opposite party but the old stationery in position of the 1^st opposite party appears to have been misused and contended that the letter dated 26.02.2011 was not ante dated as alleged in the complaint and further stated that the 2^nd opposite party is no way connected with membership of the complainant with the 1^st opposite party and the insurance certificate dated 22.04.2010 was obtained fraudulently long after the accident by some employee of the 1^st opposite party in collusion with the complainant and therefore contended it is not liable to pay the amount claim since there was no policy coverage on the date of accident.

4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed in the complaint. If, so to what extent?

The complainant had filed proof affidavit, written arguments and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A30 were marked on his side.The opposite parties had filed proof affidavit, written arguments and documents Ex.B1 to B7.

4. Point No.1:-

          The complainant submits that the 1^st opposite party launched a Road Safety Club Programme and invited members, enrolled on payment of charges. Several schemes were announced and the 1^st opposite party enrolled the complainant as a member in “AMS Classic” Scheme on payment of the necessary charges amounting to Rs.3,125/- Membership Certificate dated 11.07.2003 has been issued to the complainant. The tenure of membership is 96 months. During the said period AMS Classic members are covered under Group Personal Accident Insurance Scheme under policies issued in tie up with Insurance Companies. Individual certificates of insurance are also issued to the members covered under the Group Insurance Scheme during the tenure of membership. The membership certificate stipulates the extent of insurance cover and the cover for permanent total disability and permanent partial disability is upto Rs.3Lakhs. The 2^nd opposite party covered the complainant under group personal accident insurance for the period 11.07.2009 to 10.07.2010 and issued certificate of insurance dated 22.04.2010. The certificate of insurance covers the complainant for a sum upto Rs.3Lakhs in case of accident resulting in permanent total disablement/permanent partial disablement. The complainant met with a road accident on 11.12.2009 at Sirkali. Further according to the complainant as per disability certificate dated 08.03.2010 he has permanent disability of 70% and his disability is permanent and hence he is entitled Rs.3Lakhs under the policy towards permanent disablement and further contended that he has submitted a claim form to the 1^st opposite party by enclosing the necessary documents and also clarified the queries raised by the 1^st opposite party on various dates but he received a reply on 18.11.2010 that the tie up with a 1^st opposite party expired in August 2008 and hence the 2^nd opposite party disowned the liability and thereafter he moved the insurance ombudsman on 06.06.2011 but they expressed their inability in view of the response from the 2^nd opposite party stating that on 14.07.2008 the 1^st opposite party has sent a letter to his members terminating the insurance coverage from August 2008 and another letter dated 26.02.2011 by the 1^st opposite party to the 2^nd opposite party terminating the insurance arrangement from September 2008 and seeking refund of Rs.11,13,555/- hence the complainant contended that the alleged letter dated 14.07.2008 has not been received by the complainant and the said letter is an after thought as the 1^st opposite party as received the complainant’s claim in 2010 and sought for further details for pr9ocessing the same and further the letter dated 26.02.2011 seeking refund of Rs.11,13,555/- from the 2^nd opposite party Exhibits the collusion between the opposite parties and therefore claimed the insurance amount of Rs.3 lahs with interest and compensation.

          But on the other hand The 1^st opposite party submit that they are taking the role as intermediary/coordinating between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party and the premiums if any paid by the complainant are made over to the insurance company i.e the 2^nd opposite party and hence the 2^nd opposite party is alone liable to pay or settle the insurance claim amount to the complainant. Once, the insurance company provides the insurance cover the role of this opposite party ends. This Opposite party submits that the 2^nd opposite party is the Insurance Company and as such that they could not deny their liability by making allegation that the group insurance certificate dated 22.04.2010 was a fraudulent and collusive one and at the same time suppressing the fact that a sum of Rs.11,13,555/- is lying with them towards account of credit for and on behalf of this opposite party and also suppressing the understanding between this opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party as to the utilization for the said balance amount. It is to be noted that the 2^nd opposite party had not refunded the said amount to the 2^nd opposite party when especially they take this stand that the tie up with the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party had come to an end with the expiry of July 2008. It is further submitted that the insurance company issued a “Certificate of Insurance” specifically mentioning the name of each member, through this opposite party is “Reflected as insured” the ultimate beneficiary is the member for whose benefit the policy was insured. Further the 1^st opposite party contended that it had left a balance amount of Rs.11,13,555/- with an understanding that the said amount will be adjusted towards future premium of the existing members which is still lying with them and therefore contended that when the 2^nd opposite party disputed the insurance certificate dated 22.04.2010 as fraudulent one the claim cannot be decided summarily and it has to be tried only on elaborate evidence and denied its liability.

          Whereas the the 2^nd  opposite party The certificates of insurance for the periods 11.07.2008 to 10.07.2009 and from 11.07.2009 to 10.07.2010 relied upon by the complainant were not issued by this opposite party but unauthorisedly by a Branch office of the 1^st opposite party. On the basis of the same no right can be claimed by the complainant as against this opposite party. More particularly, the certificate for the period 11.07.2009 to 10.07.2010 has been collusively obtained by the complainant on 22.04.2010 long after the accident alleged to have taken place on 11.12.2009. It is an unauthorized and fraudulent document and no benefit can be claimed under the same. It was further contended that any claim for the benefit under the membership scheme of the the 1^st opposite party can be laid only against the 1^st opposite party and the certificate of insurance dated 22.04.2010 was created ante dating the period of insurance collusively by the complainant and the 1^st opposite party and the relationship between the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties came to an by july 2008 and after that there was insurance policy in force with the 2^nd opposite party and further contended that the 1^st opposite party when confronted admitted the wrongful issue of some certificates by its branch offices and it would bare the responsibility for the same and hence contended that if at all the complainant is entitled any benefit based on membership it is for him to workout his remedy against the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party is no way liable for the same and further stated all correspondences regarding the insurance claim was between complainant and  1^st opposite party and the said claim form was not issued by the 2^nd opposite party but the old stationery in position of the 1^st opposite party appears to have been misused and contended that the letter dated 26.02.2011 was not ante dated as alleged in the complaint and further stated that the 2^nd opposite party is no way connected with membership of the complainant with the 1^st opposite party and the insurance certificate dated 22.04.2010 was obtained fraudulently long after the accident by some employee of the 1^st opposite party in collusion with the complainant and therefore contended it is not liable to pay the amount claim since there was no policy coverage on the date of accident.

          The complainant mainly relied upon Ex.A14 which is a certificate of insurance from 11.07.2009 to 11.07.2010 alleged to have been issued by the 2^nd opposite party. But according to the 2^nd opposite party this document is a fraudulent document obtained by the complainant in collusion with the staff of the 1^st opposite party from their branch office and further stated that there was no relationship regarding insurance coverage after July 2008 between the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party and relied upon Ex.A25 which is letter dated 18.11.2010 which was address to the complainant informing that the tie up with the 1^st opposite party expired in August 2008 and they have not received any premium thereafter. Ex.A1 and A2 are membership certificate and card issued by the 1^st opposite party wherein it is found that the complainant was issued a classic card with personal accident insurance coverage for Rs.3Lakhs in respect of permanent disability in accident and in the terms and conditions it is found that the insurance coverage can be withdrawn or cancelled by the 1^st opposite party at any time and the complainant has became a member only after the acknowledging of terms and conditions of Ex.A2, Ex.A3 to A7 where certificate of insurance from the year 2008 to 2009 issue by other insurance companies which is not relevant for this complaint Ex.A8 to A13 will go to show that the complainant has met with the road accident due to which he has permanent disability and under Ex.A15 on 05.05.2010 he addressed the 1^st opposite party by enclosing the relevant documents claiming insurance amount a similar letter addressed to the 1^st opposite party is marked as Ex.A16, A21 and A23, Ex.A19 is insurance claim form submitted by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party on 21.06.2010 but this document was disputed by the 2^nd opposite party by alleging that the same was prepared by the complainant in collusion with the 1^st opposite party staff by using the old stationery available in their branch office it is found that only on 27.09.2010 which is 9 months after the accident the complainant has sent a letter to the 2^nd opposite party claiming the insurance amount and all the correspondences till them is between  the complainant and the 1^st opposite party alone. It is further found from Ex.A26 to A28 that the claim was refused by the 2^nd opposite party by stating that their tie up with the 1^st opposite party ended with July 2008 and after which there was no premium received from the 1^st opposite party and its members and therefore by letter dated 18.11.2010 which is marked as Ex.A25 the 2^nd opposite party denied its liability and it is further found that the 1^st opposite party has stated before the insurance ombudsman enquiry that they have sent a letter dated 14.07.2008 which is marked as Ex.A28 to its members withdrawing the complementary insurance arrangement from 01.08.2008 in view of administrative constraints but allowed the other complimentary benefits but according to the complainant this letter was not received by him and according to him it was created and ante dated it ids found from a letter dated 26.02.2011 which is issued by the 1^st opposite party to the 2^nd opposite party which is found in page.no 41 of complainant’s type set that the 1^st opposite party admitted that the insurance arrangement came to an end since September 2008 and it further admitted that necessary instruction was given to its branch officers to stop issuing insurance certificates but some of the offices issued certificates even after termination of arrangement erroneously and assured that in respect of such claims it will take up the liability based on the merits of the case and further stated that there is an outstanding amount of Rs.11,13,55/- lying in their credit with the 2^nd opposite party and seeking for settling the outstanding amount. It is pertinent to note that in the above said letter the 1^st opposite party categorically admitted with regard to ending of insurance arrangement in September 2008 and further admitted that some of their branch offices were erroneously issuing certificates even after termination of arrangement and hence by this letter the 1^st opposite party is now estopped from contenting otherwise and it is not legal on the part of 1^st opposite party to shift the liability in respect of the insurance claim to the 2^nd opposite party by alleging that it has already withdrawn complementary insurance benefits by sending letter to its members.

          Ex.B2 is corresponds to Ex.A14 marked by the complainant on perusal of the insurance certificates filed by the complainant which is marked as Ex.A3 to A7 it is found that the certificate of insurance for the year 2009-2010 though looking similar to the certificate issued in the previous year the date of issue being 22.04.2010 which is much after the period of insurance as well as the policy no is found to be similar as in the previous which will support the contention raised by the 2^nd opposite party that the said document was created and issued unauthorizedly by the 1^st opposite party in collusion with the complainant. Ex.B5 is an award by insurance ombudsman on a similar issue but it is found from Ex.B6 which is a letter from 2^nd opposite party to the insurance ombudsman wherein for a question raised by the ombudsman it was replied by the 2^nd opposite that they have obtained a written declaration from the 1^st opposite party wherein it has admitted that certain certificates were erroneously issued and they shall assume liability based on the merits of the case and based on such clarification given by the 2^nd opposite party the insurance ombudsman disowned the liability of 2^nd opposite party and the aforesaid facts will prove that there is no insurance relationship between the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties August 2008 onwards and it is further proved from the documents filed by both the parties that the 1^st opposite party by virtue of its admission in the letter dated 18.11.2010 as stated above has agreed to assume the liability based on the merits of each case and accordingly the 1^st opposite party is liable to pay the complainant the amount in respect of his claim towards his permanent disability and the stand of the 1^st opposite party by shifting the liability under the claim upon the 2^nd opposite party having obtained premium amount for the membership of the complainant and denying the lawful claim of the complainant amounted to deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party and it is further found that the 2^nd opposite party having ended the tie up with the 1^st opposite party in August 2008 itself and thereafter there was no relationship between the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party and hence the 2^nd opposite party is not liable to pay or answer the claim of the complainant as raised in the complaint. The complainant counsel relied upon a decision reported in (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 694 dated 25.02.2004 and AIR 1966 SC 1644 dated 07.02.66 and contended that while interpreting the insurance contracts as per Rule of  Contra Proferentem if there is ambiguity in the document it shall be construed in favour of the insured but in the present complaint there is no ambiguity in the insurance contract. The complainant also relied upon decision reported in (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 188 and also a decision reported in 1999 8 Supreme Court cases 229 dated 28.09.99 and another decision reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1287 dated 23.09.2022. On perusal of the entire records and averments of the both the parties it is found that the 1^st opposite party by virtue of its admission by its letter dated 18.11.2010 and also by its stand taken before their insurance ombudsman enquiry having admitted to meet the liability based on merits of the case is bound to pay insurance claim of the complainant and also liable to pay compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant who is one of the member the 1^st opposite party club and therefore it is found that the 1^st opposite has committed deficiency in service in not paying the amount claimed by the complainant. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

 

Point No.2:

          Based on the findings given to the PointNo.1,since there is deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party, the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.3lakhs as compensation from the 1^st opposite party for permanent total disability payable under the group insurance scheme with interest at 6%p.a from the date of claim namely 05.05.2010 till date of payment  and also entitled for compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5000/- towards cost of the complaint. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

 

           In the result the complaint is partly allowed.  The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.3lakhs as compensation for permanent total disability payable under the group insurance scheme with interest at 6%p.a from the date of claim namely 05.05.2010 till date of payment  and also directed to pay  compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5000/- towards cost of the complaint.  The above amount shall be paid to the Complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of order to till the date of payment. The complaint against Opposite party 2 is dismissed.

 

 

Dictated  by President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 14^th December 2023

 

MEMBER I                                  MEMBER – II                           PRESIDENT

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1		Copy of Membership card issued by the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A2	11.07.2003	Membership certificate issued by the 1st opposite party
Ex.A3	11.07.2003	Certificate of insurance for the period 11.07.2003 to 11.07.2004
Ex.A4	22.06.2004	Certificate of insurance for the period 11.07.2004 to 11.07.2005
Ex.A5	21.06.2005	Certificate of insurance for the period 11.07.2005 to 11.07.2006
Ex.A6	27.06.2006	Certificate of insurance for the period 11.07.2006 to 11.07.2007 issued by the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A7	25.06.2008	Certificate of insurance for the period 11.07.2008 to 11.07.2009 issued by the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A8	11.12.2009	Accident Register
Ex.A9	12.12.2009	CT Study of Brain
Ex.A10	14.12.2009	CT Study of Brain
Ex.A11	16.12.2009	FIR
Ex.A12	29.12.2009	Discharge Summary
Ex.A13	13.01.2010	Wound certificate
Ex.A14	22.04.2010	Certificate of insurance for the period 11.07.2009 to 11.07.2010 issued by the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A15	05.05.2010	Letter addressed to the 1st opposite party
Ex.A16	28.05.2010	Letter from the 1st opposite party
Ex.A17	15.06.2010	Medical Report
Ex.A18	21.06.2010	Letter addressed to the 1st opposite party
Ex.A19	21.06.2010	Personal Accident Insurance claim form
Ex.A20	02.07.2010	Letter from 1st opposite party
Ex.A21	20.07.2010	Letter addressed to the 1st opposite party
Ex.A22	03.08.2010	Letter from 1st opposite party
Ex.A23	19.08.2010	Letter addressed to the 1st opposite party
Ex.A24	27.09.2010	Letter addressed to the 2nd  opposite party
Ex.A25	18.11.2010	Letter from 2nd opposite party
Ex.A26	22.11.2010	Letter addressed to the 1st opposite party
Ex.A27	06.06.2011	Complaint filed before learned ombudsman (insurance) chennai
Ex.A28	12.08.2011	Proceedings of learned ombudsman (insurance) chennai with enclosure
Ex.A29	22.08.2011	Complaint filed before Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority
Ex.A30	12.09.2011	Proceedings of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

Ex.B1	25.06.2008	Certificate of Insurance for 2008-2009
Ex.B2	22.04.2010	Certificate of Insurance for 2009-2010
Ex.B3	26.02.2011	Letter from 1st opposite party to 2nd opposite party
Ex.B4	07.06.2011	Letter from Insurance ombudsman to 2nd opposite  party seeking clarification
Ex.B5	08.06.2011	Award of Insurance ombudsman on similar issue
Ex.B6	02.08.2011	Letter from 2nd opposite party answering to the clarification sought by Insurance ombudsman
Ex.B7	12.08.2011	Letter from Insurance ombudsman to the complainant along with individual communication format issued by 1st opposite party

 

 

MEMBER – I                         MEMBER – II                       PRESIDENT