BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri. S. Chinnaiah, B.A. B.L., I/C President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Friday the 18th day of April, 2008
C.C.No. 13/08
Between:
1.Smt.A.Laxmi Devi, w/o. Late A. Sreenivasulu,
Hindu, aged 34 years, House Wife, R/o. H.No.85-208-A, Shareen Nagar, Kurnool.
2. A.Kavya Kumari, S/o. Late.A.Sreenivasulu, Hindu, aged 12 years, Minor,
3. A.Tulasi Ram, S/o. Late. A. Sreenivasulu, Aged about 8 years, Minor,
Represented by its natural mother, Smt. A. Laxmi Devi, W/o.Late.A.Sreenivasulu, R/o. H.No.85-208-A, Shareen Nagar, Kurnool. … Complainants
Versus
1. The Branch Manager, L.I.C of India, Gadwal Branch,
Mahaboob Nagar District.
2. The Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office,
Jeevan Prakash, 5-9-21, Secretariat Road, Saidabad, Hyderabad-500 063.
3. The Branch Manager, L.I.C of India, Kurnool Branch,
Kurnool. … Opposite Parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate, Kurnool, for the complainant, and Sri.I.Anantha Rama Sastry, Advocate, Kurnool for the opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
(As per Sri. S. Chinnaiah, I/c President)
C.C.No.13-08
1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties to pay the assured amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a on policy bearing No.643813934, to pay the assured amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 24 % p.a. on policy bearing No.643828436, to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, and to pay the cost of the complaint.
2. The contents of the complaint in brief are that the first complainant is the wife, second and third complainant’s are the minor children of the deceased policies holder late. A. Sreenivasulu. The First opposite party is the person who issued two L.I.C policies in the name of the deceased policy holder and second opposite party is the person who illegally and falsely repudiate the claims of the complainant’s without basis and the third opposite party is the person who is the local branch of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 and doing the same service at Kurnool. On 28-03-1993 the deceased policy holder took a policy bearing No.643813934 for Rs.50,000/- on half yearly payment mode from the opposite party No.1. Again on 25-03-1996 the deceased policy holder took another L.I.C policy bearing No.643828436 for Rs.50,000/- on half yearly payment mode from opposite party No.1. After obtaining the two policies the deceased policy holder has paid the premium regularly to opposite party No.1. At the time of obtaining two policies, the policy holder late. A. Sreenivasulu was a bachelor and obviously he nominated his father late. A. Venkataswamy as the nominee of the said two polices. But on 5-03-2002 the nominee of the said two policies died. Thereafter on 25-12-2005 the policy holder died due to (High fever) ill health leaving behind the complainant’s. The complainant’s being the legal representatives of the deceased policy holder, submitted their claim to opposite party No.1. Thereafter on 18-05-2007 the opposite party No.2 repudiated the two claims of the complainants on flimsy grounds without any basis and records. But to the surprise of the complainants the second opposite party illegally and falsely repudiated the claim of the complainants without any basis and proof vide letter dated 18-05-2007 prior to taking of the policies and at the time of revival of the said two polices , the deceased was hale and healthy. Due to wrong repudiation of the complainant’s claim, the complainant suffering mental agony and hardship. Though the insured has not taken any treatment from any doctor prior of revival of the policy, the opposite party No1 wrongly and illegally repudiated the complainant’s claim. The wrong repudiation of the complainant’s claim by opposite party No.2 without any proof without and cogent material amounts to deficiency of service. Hence the case of the complaint.
3. The opposite party No.1 filed a counter stating it is true that the deceased life assured A. Sreenivasulu has taken two Insurance Policies on his life i.e.,643828436 for sum assured of Rs.50,000/- Table and Term 75-20, with date of commencement as 25-03-1996 by nominating his wife i.e. and (2) Policy No. 643813934 for sum assured of Rs.50,000/- Table and Term 75-20 with date of commencement as 28-03-1995 by nominating his father A. Venkata Swamy as nominee. Both the policies are taken for the opposite party No.1 only. It is further submitted that the nominee under the policy 643813934 is died on 5-03-2002. The life assured also died on 25-01-2005 intestate. Hence, the title is open under the policies. It is further stated that during of life time of the life assured, the life assured has availed policy loans of the two policies 18-5-2000. The loan particulars of submitted in a statement of account. And that the statement account is also filed. It is further submitted that the respondent No.2 has admitted the claim under the above true policies and the respondent No.2 is ready and willing to deposit the claim amount into this Forum after deducting the outstanding loan, the accrued interest and the unpaid premiums on the policies, if this Forum directs the opposite party No.2. The Net amount payable on policy No.643828436 is Rs.60,141/- and for policy No.643813934 is Rs.75,308/-. Total net amount payable under the two policies is Rs.1,35,449/- only. Hence to dismiss the compliant with costs.
4. Opposite party No.1 and 3 filed memo’s adopting the counter filed by the opposite party No.2.
5. Heard arguments both sides.
6. We have gone through the contents of complaint, counter & the material available on record. As seen from the counter filed by the opposite parties, there is no dispute regarding the policy bearing No.643813934 for Rs.50,000/- on 28-03-1993 and a policy bearing No. 643828436 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- dated 25-03-1996 by the deceased Srinivasulu who died on 25-12-2005 due to ill health. It is also not in dispute that the policy holder srinivasulu died leaving behind his wife and children i.e., first complainant and second and third as wife and children. After the death of the policy holder i.e.
D. Srinivasulu the complainants being wife and children of the deceased have demanded for payment of the policy amounts of the deceased. But the claim was repudiated by the opposite parties. These are the admitted facts.
7. The opposite parties in their counter have stated that during the life time of the assured, he had availed loans on policy on 18-05-2000. On that the details are shown in statement of account filed along with counter. The opposite party No.2 in his counter has admitted the claim under the two policies and he is ready and willing to deposit the claim amounts into the forum after deducting the outstanding loan, the accured interest and the unpaid premiums on the policies. It is also stated, that the net amount payable on policy No.643828436 is Rs.60,141/- and for policy No.643813934 is Rs.75,308/- . Total amount payable under the two policies is Rs.1,35,449/-.
8. The counsel appearing for the complainant conceded for the proposal for payment of the policies amount in the counter. We have also gone through statement of account filed by opposite party No.2 along with counter. Hence, as the counsel for complainants agreed and concented to take the amount of Rs.1,35,449/- under the two policies after deducting the outstanding loan, the accrued interest and the unpaid premiums on the two policies, we direct the opposite parties to pay the said amount to the complainants.
9. In the result, the complaint is allowed partly, directing opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,35,449/- to the complainant No.1, who is the wife of the deceased and natural guardian to the complainant No.2 and 3. The complainant’s are not entitled to the other benefits and reliefs as claimed in the complaint. The complainant against opposite party No.3 is dismissed but without costs. Both parties do bear their own costs. This order shall be complied with by opposite parties 1 and 2 within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 18th day of April.2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER I/C PRESIDENT
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For Complainant: For Opposite parties
- Nil- -Nil-
Documents marked
For the Complainant:
- Nil-
For the opposite parties:
_Nil
By the Forum:
-Nil- Sd/-
I/C PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
- Sri. M. Sivaji Rao, Advocate,Kurnool for the complainant.
- Sri.I. Anantha Rama Sastry, Advocate, Kurnool
for the opposite parties.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on :
Copy was delivered to parties:
