BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri.SNiranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., President (FAC),
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Tuesday the 28th day of July, 2015
C.C.No.121/2013
Between:
Smt.M.Saraswathamma,
W/o Late M.Chandra Mouleeswar Reddy,
Aged 37 Years, Hindu,
Government Employee,
R/o.D.No.80/11-129-B-7-2, Abbas Nagar,
Kurnool-518 002. …Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Branch Manager,
LIC of India Limited,
Kurnool Branch,
D.No.40/36-3,
River View Colony,
Kurnool-518 001.
2. The Divisional Manager,
LIC of India Limited,
Kadapa Division, P.B.No.10,
Jeevan Prakash Building,
College Road, KADAPA-516 004.
3. The Chairman,
LIC of India Limited,
Nariman Point Branch,
Post Box No.19953, Yogakshema,
Jeeva Bima Marg, Mumbai-400 021,
Maharastra State. …OPPOSITE PARTIES
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.M.D.Y.Rama Moorthy, Advocate for complainant and Sri.G.MD.Habeebur Rahiman, Advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2 and opposite party No.3 called absent and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member)
C.C. No.121/2013
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to direct the opposite parties:-
- To settle and pay the entire insurance policy amount together with accident benefits and also profits like accrued bonus etc., relating to the policy named as “Jeevan Anand (With Profits) (With Accident Benefits)”, with policy No.655753714, standing in the name of the deceased insured M.Chandramouleeswar Reddy, to the complainant who is his nominee.
- To pay Rs.20,000/- towards damages.
- To pay costs of the complaint.
And
- To grant such other and further claims this Honourable Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complaint in brief runs as follows:- The complainant is the wife of life insured M.Chandramouleeswar Reddy. The Late M.Chandramouleeswar Reddy insured his life with opposite party No.1 and obtained Insurance Police under the named as “JEEVAN ANAND (With Profits) (with Accident benefits)”, under policy bearing No.655753714 for an assured sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with its annual premium of Rs.14,230/- with its date of commencement is 28.01.2010. The complainant is the nomine under the policy. The deceased/insured was working as a Police Constable in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and was suddenly died in a Brutal Naxal Attack at Dhanthewada, Chattisgad State on 06.04.2010. Being the nominee the complainant submitted the claim form to opposite party No.1 on 30.05.2010 along with relevant documents. Though the complainant requested several time to opposite party No.1 to settle the claim of the complainant, the opposite party No.1 postponing the same on the pretext or the other. The complainant got issued legal notice on 17.01.2013 to the opposite parties 1 and 2 and requested to settle the claim but the opposite parties did not respond either gave reply to the said notice or to settle the claim of the complainant. The opposite parties intentionally failed to settle the just and lawful claim of the complaint. There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and caused mental agony and financial troubles to the complainant. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.2 filed written version and the same was adopted by opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 filed written version stating that the complaint is neither just nor maintainable either in law or on facts. It is admitted that the opposite parties issued policy bearing No.655753714 for assured amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with annual premium of Rs.14,230/- and the life assured died on Naxal Attack on 06.04.2010 and the complainant is the nominee under the policy. It is also admitted that the opposite parties received legal notice issued by complainant on 21.01.2013 and the reply notice sent on 28.02.2013 by Registered Post. The opposite parties conducted investigation on technical reasons and after the receipt of report the opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the deceased/insured was not on leave on the date of proposal and the signature of (Life Assured) in the proposal form does not tally with any of the signatures affixed on his own loan application and related forms under his policy No.651765576 (i.e.,) Employer Certificate, PAN Card and Bank Account Papers. The opposite parties sent the signatures to Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. In that report it is clear that the proposal forms was submitted by impersonation by a different person than the policy holder. Thus the opposite parties repudiated the claim of complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Inspite of notice served on opposite party No.3, opposite party No.3 did not choose either to appear before the Forum or to file written version on behalf of him. Opposite party No.3 called absent and set exparte.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of opposite parties Ex.B1 to Ex.B10 are marked and sworn affidavit of opposite party No.1 is filed. Deposition of RW1 examined Sri.R.B.Bhosale. Ex.X1 is marked.
5. Both sides filed Written Argument.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
- To what relief?
7. POINTS i and ii:- It is the case of complainant that the life assured/deceased Sri.M.Chandra Mouleeswar Reddy took the policy under the named as “JEEVAN ANAND (With Profits) (with Accident benefits)”, under policy bearing No.655753714 for an assured sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with accidental benefits with annual premium of Rs.14,230/- with its date of commencement is 28.01.2010, and the complainant is the nomine under the policy. Ex.A1=Ex.B10 is the photo copy of the policy bearing No.655753714. The complainant in her sworn affidavit stated that the life assured had suddenly died in a Brutal Naxal Attack at Dhanthewada, Chattisgad State on 06.04.2010. Being the nominee she submitted her claim form to opposite party No.1 on 30.05.2010 along with relevant documents, but the opposite parties postponing the same and did not settle the claim. Thus the complainant got issued legal notice on 17.01.2013 to opposite parties 1 and 2 and requested to settle the claim but they did not respond. The office copy of Legal Notice is marked as Ex.A2 dated 17.01.2013 and postal receipt and postal acknowledgement is marked as Ex.A3. It is further case of the complainant that the entire proposal form is filled up by the Agent by name M.Srinivasa Reddy and the life assured had only subscribed his signature in the proposal from. The life assured was in the habit of put his signature in full as well as short signature. If the opposite parties informed about the alleged difference in signatures, the complainant would have convinced the opposite parties by producing both the signatures of life assured. But the opposite parties repudiated the claim on both the reasons are not tenable and true. It is the contention of opposite parties that the opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant on 15.06.2013 on the ground that the insured/deceased was not on leave on the date of proposal and the signatures of insured in proposal form are not tallying with signatures in his first loan application in policy bearing No.651765576 and related documents (i.e.,) Employer Certificate, PAN Card, Bank Account Papers. Ex.B1 is the repudiation Letter dated 15.06.2013, Ex.B2 is the Central Forensic Science Laboratory Examination Report/Opinion, Ex.B3 is the Application for first loan under policy bearing No.651765576, Ex.B4 is the Authority Slip, Ex.B5 is the Proposal Form dated 28.02.2010, Ex.B6 is the Office copy of letter ref.Claims Department dated 25.04.2013 addressed to the director, Central Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad. The opposite party sent Ex.B3, Ex.B4 and Ex.B5 for tallying the signatures of deceased/insured and the said laboratory send report Ex.B2 stating that the signatures encircled with blue pen marked as A1 to A5 (Admitted Signatures) did not tally with the red encircled signatures marked as Q1 and Q2 (Questioned Signatures) and the signatures marked as Ex.A6 being inconsistent with A1 to A5 not utilized for comparison. The opposite parties examined Sri.R.B.Bhosale as RW1 and he deposed that the laboratory received the parcel (Ex.B7) on 27.07.2012 for verification of signatures of one Sri.M.Chandra Mouleeswar Reddy encircle with blue pencil (Ex.B3) admitted signatures A1 to A5 and red pencil questioned signatures Q1 and Q2 in (Ex.B5) Ex.B2 is the report given by him. Ex.X1 is the report of Laboratory. Ex.B7 is the photo copy of letter by opposite party to Laboratory dated 27.07.2012. Ex.B8 is the Office copy of letter to Advocate M.D.V.Jogaiah Sharma, dated 28.02.2013. Ex.B9 is the Office copy of letter to complainant dated 04.08.2012. As per the Laboratory report and RW1 evidence the signatures contained in the proposal form Ex.B5 are other than the life assured. Thus the opposite parties are not liable to pay insurance amount under the above policy.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant contended that the complainant submitted the claim on 30.05.2010 along with relevant documents. The opposite parties paid a sum of Rs.69,750/- by way of cheque on 02.07.2010 towards basic policy amount vested, bonus and interim bonus. The opposite parties keep quiet for more than two years and after the receipt of legal notice on 17.01.2013, the opposite party managed to obtain self serving and manipulated alleged report of hand writing expert Ex.B2 without the notice of complainant about the alleged signatures and further argued that generally employees have in the habit of putting short signatures and full signatures, RW1 also deposed that the admitted signatures A1 to A5 in Ex.B3 are tallying with each other and the Q1 and Q2 signatures in Ex.B5 are tallying with one another the undisputed documents such as Employer Certificate, PAN Card and Bank Account Papers were neither furnished on record nor compared by the hand writing expert as claimed in written version of opposite party. The insured was an army personnel and died due to Naxal Attack. The opposite parties repudiated the claim just because the signatures in the proposal form are not tallying with the signatures of insured the entire process of comparison was got managed by the opposite parties so as to deny the claim of the complainant. There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and also the “unfair trade practice” on their behalf.
9. There is no dispute with regard to issuance of policy bearing No.655753714 in favour of the deceased/insured for an assured sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with accidental benefits with its date of commencement is 28.01.2010 and the insured died in Brutal Naxal Attack, accidentally the complainant is the nominee under the above said policy. It is also not under dispute that the complainant being the nominee and wife of the complainant submitted claim form to opposite party on 30.05.2010 along with relevant documents. The main dispute arisen with regard to signatures of life assured contained in the proposal form (Ex.B5) tallying with the signatures contained in application for first loan under the policy bearing No.651765576 (Ex.B3) and authority slip (Ex.B4). The signatures in the proposal form are in short signatures where as the signatures in the loan application (Ex.B3) are in full signatures and the opposite party in his written version, sworn affidavit and written arguments clearly stated that the signatures of life assured in proposal form does not tally with any of the signatures affixed on his own loan application and related form under policy No.651765576, (i.e.,) Employer Certificate, PAN Card and Bank Account Papers. But the opposite parties did not furnish the said Employer Certificate, PAN Card and Bank Account Papers, the either to hand writing expert or on record before the Forum in order to compare the signatures of life assured. It is admitted that the deceased/insured was already a policy holder under policy No.651765576 of Insurance Company (opposite party) and he obtained other policies from opposite parties and took loan from the opposite parties and the opposite parties were in contact with deceased/insured and under custody of above said the documents of life assured relating to his signatures. If the life assured had already taken policies from the opposite party it is clearly shows that the opposite parties might have the signatures of life assured with them. At the time of taking above policy the opposite parties can compare and tally it with the proposal form with the earlier documents. But the opposite parties kept quiet and allow him to take policy and unfortunately he died in Naxal Attack. Now at the time of settlement of claim of the complainant are raising objections to denay the claim of the complainant and without the notice of complainant, and without giving any chance to furnish the contemporaneous signatures of the insured for their comparison with the alleged questioned signatures. The opposite parties opted to send the signatures to handwriting experts without furnishing the undisputed documents like Employer Certificate, PAN Card and Bank Account Papers which were in their custody at the time of taking policy, and at the time of sending documents to hand writing experts, and at the time of contesting the above case, before the Forum. The expert evidence cannot be conclusive by itself. It should be corroborated either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. In the present case on hand the opposite parties did not sent the undisputed documents of life assured as stated in their written version, sworn affidavit and written arguments (i.e.,) Employer Certificate, PAN Card and Bank Account Papers either to said laboratory for comparison of signatures or produce before the Forum. But the opposite party sent the first loan account application which was taken in earlier policy from the opposite parties. The comparison of insured full signatures with short signatures by experts is not appreciable, we could not accept the evidence of export without any corroborative evidence on record. The proposal form Ex.B5 is filled up by LIC Agent M.Srinivasa Reddy. The opposite party did not choose to either examine him or file any affidavit of agent to prove their version. Except the expert evidence there is no other evidence on record to show that the signatures contained in the proposal form Ex.B5 are not the signatures of deceased/insured and the opposite parties could not place on record to show that the life assured was not on leave, on the date of proposal. The complainant submitted claim form to opposite parties on 30.05.2010. The opposite parties kept pending for about two years and after wards opposite parties adopted the process of handwriting experts and not settle the claim of the complainant. We found that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and caused mental agony to the complainant.
10. Point No.iii:- The complainant claimed for an assured amount with accrued bonus and with accidental benefits and further compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony. We perused all the material available on record facts and circumstances of the case we hold a view that the complainant is entitled for an assured amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with accidental benefits under the above policy and further entitled for compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony.
11. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay an assured amount of Rs.5,00,000/- under the above policy along with accidental benefits with interest at 9% per annum from the date of complaint i.e., on 24.11.2014 till the date of payment and further direct to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as costs of the case. Time for compliance is 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 28th day of July, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties: RW1
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of Policy bearing No.655753714 dated 28.04.2010.
Ex.A2 Office copy of Legal Notice dated 17.01.2013.
Ex.A3 Postal Acknowledgement and Postal Receipts.
Ex.X1 Central Forensic Science Laboratory Examination Report/Opinion.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Claim Repudiation Letter dated 15.06.2013.
Ex.B2 Central Forensic Science Laboratory Examination Report/Opinion.
Ex.B3 Application for First Loan under Policy No.651765576.
Ex.B4 Authority Slip.
Ex.B5 Proposal Form dated 28.02.2010.
Ex.B6 Office copy of Letter Ref.Claims Department dated 25.04.2013
addressed to the Director, Central Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad.
Ex.B7 Photo copy of Letter Ref., Claims Department dated 27.07.2012
addressed to the Director, Central Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad.
Ex.B8 Office copy of Letter Ref., Claims Department dated 28.02.2013
addressed to Sri.M.D.V.Jogaiah Sharma, Advocate, Kurnool.
Ex.B9 Office copy of Letter Ref., Claims Department dated 04.08.2012 addressed to Smt.Saraswathamma, Complainant.
Ex.B10 Policy bearing No.6557 53714.
RW1 Deposition of Sri.R.B.Bhosale, dated 20.02.2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
