This case is coming on for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri A.Harish, Advocate for the Complainants/Petitioners and Sri D.B.Viswanadha Sastry and Sri K.Venkateswara rao, Advocates for Respondents 1 to 3 and having stood over for consideration the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

AS PER SRI G.APPALA NAIDU,MEMBER

     This complaint is filed U/s-12 of C.P.Act,1986  seeking relief to pass an order in favour of the complainants and against the respondents directing them to pay the claim amount payable under the policy No.695680337 together with interest at 24% per annum from the date of claim till the date of payment consequent upon the death of Jillepalli Venkateswarulu (Patta holder), to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service on the part of respondents, to award costs of the petition and to grant such other or further reliefs as the Honourable Forum deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice on the following averments:-

          It is submitted that the 1^st petitioner is the wife and the 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners are the children of late Jillepalli Venkateswarulu who died on 12.07.2012 due to ill health, leaving behind him the petitioners as his class 1  legal heirs.  The petitioners also submits that during the life time of the said Jillepalli Venkateswarulu, he took a policy bearing no.695680337 on 20.01.2010 under the scheme of  LIC’s Jeevan Saral from the 1^st respondent and the policy was issued on 17.02.2010.  The insured paid the premium amounts upto date at Rs.1,225/- per quarter and the sum assured is Rs.1,00,000/-.  In the said policy, the name of the 1^st petitioner was given as nominee of the insured.  Accordingly,  after the death of the said policy holder, the petitioners made a claim to the 1^st respondent for the sum assured, by submitting all the required papers but the respondents for the best reasons known to them so far did not settle the claim though  two years elapsed from the date of death of the policy holder.  Thus there is negligence and also deficiency of service on the part of respondents.  The petitioners have suffered a lot of mental agony and physical strain besides spending amount to go round the offices of the respondents on several occasions from the date of making claim till date but the respondents did not care and also did not settle the claim amout.  Hence this complaint.

          Counter filed by 2^nd O.P. which was adopted by 1^st and 3^rd O.P’s denying the allegations leveled by the complainants except those which are specifically admitted therein and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.

          The respondents submits that there is no claim made by the petitioners and further the petitioners never approached the office of the respondents in the above regard at any point of time but they came to know about the death of the deceased through a legal notice issued by the petitioners.  It is further submitted that as per the policy condition, the premiums are to be paid regularly and keep the policy in force upto the date of event i.e. death/maturity.  Under the said policy, the premiums are received upto October 2010 on quarterly basis and from January 2011, premiums are not received.  As on the date of death of life assured i.e. 12.07.2012, policy is in lapsed condition due to non-receipt of premiums from January 2011 onwards.  Hence as per policy contract, the same is in lapsed condition and hence nothing is payable as there is no deficiency of service on the part of O.P’s.

          Further as there was no approach to the office of the respondents either in person or by way of correspondence, the question of mental agony does not arise and the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation or costs.  Besides the policy was not in force by the date of death of the life insured i.e.  12.07.2012 and hence the claim is untenable.  It is also further submitted that 3^rd respondent is a non-officiating person and as such he cannot be added as a party to the proceedings.  As there is no cause of action to make the claim and as there is no deficiency of service on the part of respondents, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          Exhibits A1 to A3 are marked on behalf of the complainants and exhibit B1 is marked on behalf of the respondents.

          Heard arguments.  Posted for orders.  The orders are as follows:-

The counsel for both the parties advanced arguments by reiterating what was stated in the complaint, counter, evidence affidavits and brief written arguments respectively.

The main contention of the complainants is that even though they made a claim to the respondents by furnishing all the required information/material and  made several visits to the offices of the respondents on several occasions, they did not care and did not settle the claim thus subjecting them to mental agony, discomfort, inconvenience and hardship which amounts to negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondents.  However no documentary proof could be submitted by the petitioners in the above regard.

The main contention of the respondents is that the petitioners never approached them and also never submitted any claim application besides the fact that the policy was not in force by the date of the death of the life assured i.e. 12.07.2012 due to non-receipt of premiums from January,2011 on wards and hence the claim is untenable since the policy is in lapsed condition.  Hence there is no deficiency of service on their part and also there is no cause of action to make the claim by the petitioners.

Now the point for consideration is whether there is deficiency in service and negligence on the part of respondents?

Perused the entire material placed on record.  It is evident from the above that the insured paid only quarterly instalments of premium for 4 quarters i.e. one year upto October, 2010 in respect of the said policy and from January, 2011 onwards no premiums were paid and hence the policy is in lapsed condition due to non-receipt of the said premiums and therefore the policy was not in force by the date of death of the life assured i.e. 12.07.2012 and accordingly the claim is untenable.  Hence we are of the considered view that there is no negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondents.

In view of all the above reasons, the complaint is liable to be  dismissed.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed but under the circumstances without costs.     

               Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 13th day of July, 2015.

MEMBER                                                                      PRESIDENT

C.C.No.47 / 2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For complainant:-                                             For opposite parties:-

PW 1                                                                    RW1  &  RW2

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Compainant:-

Ex.A-1 Copy of LIC Policy Bond stood in the name of J.Venkateswarulu.

Ex.A-2 Copy of the Death Certificate of J.Venkateswarulu.

Ex.A-3 Copy of Legal Heir Certificate, issued by Tahasildar, Salur.

For O.P’s:-

Ex.B-1 LIC Status Report.

                                                                                         President