This C.C. came up before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri.V.Ravi Kumar, Advocate for Complainant, and of Sri.M.V.Subrahmanyam, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and of Sri. G.Seetha Rama Rao, Advocate for opposite party No.2; upon perusing the material papers on record; and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
ORDER
(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member )
1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments;
2. The wife of the complainant had obtained Bank Account bearing No.01670070414 from opposite party No.1 and made transactions with opposite party No.1 from 30-7-2004 to 30-6-2005. The opposite party No.1 provided insurance policy by way of collecting premium. On 4-9-2005, the wife of the complainant died due to scorpion bite, immediately, the death information was intimated to the opposite party No.1 and submitted necessary documents for realization of policy amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and made many rounds to opposite party No.1, but the opposite party No.1 did not respond to pay the policy amount, as such the complainant issued legal notice to opposite party No.1 on 3-6-2006, after receipt of notice also the opposite party No.1 did not respond to pay the policy amount to the complainant. The complainant further stated that the attitude of opposite party No.1 amounts to deficiency in service, as such the complainant approached the Forum for redressal and prayed to award an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards policy amount together with interest at 24% P.A.
3. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed affidavit and also filed
1) Office copy of legal notice, dt.3-6-2006
2) Xerox copy of pass book, S.B.H. of the deceased/policy holder
3) Death certificate, dt.14-3-2006 issued by Panchayat Secretary, Bayyaram
4) Postal acknowledgments
4. After registering the complaint, this Forum issued notice to opposite party No.1 and having received the same the opposite party No.1 appeared through it’s counsel and filed counter and the opposite party No.2 is added as a party to the proceedings vide I.A.No.246/2006 and filed counter by denying the allegations made in the complaint.
5. In the counter, the opposite party No.1 admitted the issuance of State Bank of Hyderabad, Kisan Credit Card to the wife of the complainant and also admitted that the wife of the complainant has submitted the renewal application for Agricultural Credit and after sanctioning the same, they sent the premium of KCC holders to opposite party No.2 and the opposite party No.2 issued master policy. As per the said policy, the insured sum is Rs.50,000/- for every individual in the event of accidental death. The opposite party No.1 further stated that the complainant made claim form on 20-7-2006 and in turn they forwarded the same to the opposite party No.2 on the same day and also contended that the opposite party No.2 had repudiated the claim of the complainant vide its letter, dt.31-8-2006 by the reason of non sending the relevant documents, as such there is no deficiency on the part of them and prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs of Rs.5,000/-.
6. Along with the counter, the opposite party No.1 filed
1) Xerox copy of circular No.AGR/2001-02/12/dt.31-7-2001 issued by
State Bank of Hyderabad,
2) Xerox copy of Circular No.AGR/2001-02/18/dt.28-9-2001 issued by
State Bank of Hyderabad,
3) Hypothecation Agreement, dt.30-7-2007
4) Application for KCC made by deceased/policy holder
5) Application for Comprehensive Crop Insurance Scheme
6) Application for Agricultural loan
7) Sanction letter, issued by opposite party No.1 to the deceased/policy holder
8) Xerox copy of policy
9) Letter, dt.20-7-2006 addressed by the complainant to the
opposite party No.1
10) Xerox copy of death certificate, dt.14-3-2006 issued by panchayat
Secretary, Bayyaram
11) Declaration certificate, dt.24-6-2006 issued by Panchayat Secretary,
Bayyaram
12) Xerox copy of pass book of the deceased/policy holder.
13) Letter dt.20-7-2006 to the opposite party No.2 addressed by the
opposite party No.1
14) Repudiation Letter, dt.31-8-2006.
15) Letter dated 25-7-2006 addressed by the opposite party No.2 to the
opposite party No.1.
7. As per the counter of opposite party No.2, they also admitted the issuance of policy bearing No.051701/47/43/00000524 to the opposite party No.1 for the period of one year i.e. from 11-8-2005 to 10-8-2006 for an amount of Rs.50,000/- to each holder in the event of accidental death and denied the other allegations. The opposite party No.2 further contended that as per the conditions of the policy, the post mortem report is vital document for ascertaining the cause of death and also contended that the death information was not reported to police and there is no P.M.E. conducted on the deceased/policy holder and further stated that as per the averments of the complaint, the wife of complainant died on 5-9-2005 due to scorpion bite. The complainant made claim on 20-7-2006 without proper documentation to the opposite party No.1 and the same was received by them on 12-8-2006 and in the absence of necessary documents, the cause of death cannot be ascertained, as such they repudiated the claim of the complainant and there is no deficiency of service on the part of them and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
8. In support of their averments, the complainant and the opposite parties filed written arguments, with the same averments as mentioned in their complaint and counters. Along with a memo, the complainant filed Xerox copy of claim form. The opposite party No.2 filed conditions of the KCC scheme policy, and also filed repudiation letter along with a petition.
9. In view of the above submissions made by the parties, the point that arose for consideration is,
Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed or not?
Point:
10. As seen from the averments of the complaint and counter, there is no dispute in issuance of policy bearing No. 051701/47/43/00000524 under Kissan credit Card scheme policy (Janatha Personal Accident Policy) to the wife of the complainant and as per the complaint, the wife of the complainant died on 4-9-2005 due to scorpion bite and immediately the death information was intimated to the opposite party No.1 for realization of the policy amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Inspite of many requests made by the complainant, the opposite party No.1 did not pay the policy amount to the complainant. On the other hand, the opposite parties contended that the complainant made claim, after issuance of legal notice and filing of the complaint and also contended that there is no F.I.R. and P.M.E., and as per the conditions of the policy, they repudiated the claim of the complainant and as such they are not liable to pay the policy amount. As seen from the material filed by the complainant, no report was lodged and no case was registered regarding the death of the policy holder and to prove his case, the complainant filed death certificate, issued by the Gram Panchayat Secretary, but he failed to produce P.M.E. or any documentary evidence, equivalent to P.M.E. for proper consideration and as per the conditions of the policy, the Forensic report is mandatory for ascertaining the cause of death, in this regard the complainant failed to produce any valuable evidence to prove his case and moreover the complainant did not clarify why he had taken 10 months of time to claim the opposite parties for realization of policy amount and as per the letter dated 20-7-2006, the complainant requested the opposite party No.1 for payment of policy amount, it seems that prior to claiming the opposite parties the complainant knocked the doors of Consumer Forum. The complainant filed his complaint on 24-6-2006 and the same was registered on 28-6-2006, the claim made by the complainant to the opposite party No.1 on 20-7-2006, i.e. the complainant made his claim nearly one month after the date of filing of the complaint, it clearly shows that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties as alleged by the complainant and the Consumer Protection Act also stated the same, as such in view of the above discussion we cannot fasten any liability on the part of opposite parties without any deficiency. As such the contention of the complainant is not sustainable and the point is answered accordingly against the complainant.
11. In the result, the C.C. is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 11th day of February, 2009.
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
-Nil-
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
