BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 71/2012.
THIS THE 25th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Smt. Tayamma W/o. Late Gurunath, Major, Occ:
Husehold, R/o. Nilgol village, Tq. Lingasugur Dist: Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTIES :- 1. The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Branch
Office, Sindhanoor,
2. The Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Divisional Office, Station Road, Raichur.
3. The Zonal Manager, LIC of India, South Central Zonal Office, Jeevan Bhagya Saufabad, Hyderbad- 500 063.
4. The General Manager, Hutti Gold Mines Co. Ltd., Hutti, Tq. Lingasgur, Dist: Raichur.
CLAIM :- For to direct the opposites to make the payment
of LIC amount pertaining to Policy Nos. 661362705 and 661363684 total assured sum of Rs. 85,000/- with bonus interest and other benefits and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards damages and cost of the litigation.
Date of institution :- 01-09-12.
Notice served :- 20-00-12.
Date of disposal :- 25-02-12.
Complainant represented by Sri. Mallangowda, Advocate.
Opposite Nos- 1 to 3 represented by Sri. Basavaraj Sakri, Advocate.
Opposite No-4 represented by Sri. M. Nagappa, Advocate.
-----
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Guururaj, Member:-
This is a complaint filed by the complainant Smt. Tayamma W/o. late Gurunath against Opposites 1 to 4 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposites to make the payment of LIC amount pertaining to Policy Nos. 661362705 and 661363684 total assured sum of Rs. 85,000/- with bonus interest and other benefits and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards damages and cost of the litigation.
2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, her husband late Gurunath was an employee under opposite No-4 working as an underground labor. He purchased several LIC policies at his life time, among those policies two policies have not settled. The said Gurunath died on 22-11-2001 leaving behind his nominee and legal heir Smt. Tayamma. His wife claimed the policy amount pertaining to two polices, but opposite No-1 to 3 have not settled her claim. The complainant has made several requests in order to settle the claims, she has made requests through letter dt. 11-01-2005, 18-12-2006, 23-02-2007, 19-01-2009, 16-08-2010, 25-01-2011 but for the said requests opponent No-1 & 2 have not considered the requests of the complainant, but on the contrary all of sudden the complainant received letter dt. 19-0-2011 from the Zonal Manager, LIC of India, i.e, opposite No-3 stating that, the requests/representations of the complainant in respect of repudiation of the claim of the said policies would call for the records from the Raichur Division Office, and consider the request of the complainant before the zonal claims review committee. But till this date no action has been taken for settling the claim of the complainant. After that, she has got issued legal notice dt. 14-12-2011 through her counsel to the opposite No-1 thereafter, she has also written a letter to the Opposite No-3 on 21-03-2012. Even inspite of that also there was no reply from Respondent No-1 and as well as the Respondent No-3 and thereby they have caused deficiency in service along with Respondent No-4. Hence this present complaint has been filed seeking the relief as prayed in it.
3. Opposite Nos 1 to 3 LIC appeared in this case through its Advocate and filed written version by denying all the allegations made by the complainant. It is contended that the complaint of the complainant is barred by limitation as the cause of action for the complaint had arisen only on 19-03-2003 when this Respondent has repudiated the claim on the disputed policies. The complaint in order to survive the law of limitation should have been filed within a period of two years from the date of repudiation i.e, on or before 19-03-2005. But it has been filed after lapse of more than seven years & five months from the date of actual arisen of the cause of action. Further, it is contended that, the complaint has not filed any application before this Forum for to condone an inordinate delay of more than seven years & five months.
Further, it is contended that, the policyholder i.e, husband of the complainant had suppressed the material facts in respect of his decease. The deceased was suffering from Bronchial Asthama upper respiratory infection, chest pain, but this fact was concealed while taking the policy and for that reason the repudiation was made, the act of the Respondent is justified and there is no deficiency of service. Further it is also contended by these Respondents 1 to 3 that, the repudiation action has been communicated to the complainant on 19-03-2003. The complainant had opportunity to approach redressal machinery within 30 days from the receipt of repudiation letter or to approach the Hon’ble Forum within two years from the date of repudiation letter but he complainant kept quite for such a long time for seven years, & five months she is misleading this Forum saying that, the cause of action arose on 09-02-2011 and 21-03-2011, therefore the complaint is barred by limitation. There is no deficiency of service from the Respondents 1 to 3 and Respondent is not liable to pay any death claim on the disputed policies and any other costs and sought for dismissal of the complaint against Respondent No-1 to 3 with cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
4. The Respondent No-4 has also field detail written version contending that, the Respondent No-1 & 2 have not settled the claim of the complainant on the ground that, the husband of the complainant was suppressed the material facts regarding his health. The Respondent No-4 has regularly remitted the premium of late Gurunath whenever there is a sufficient earnings and the Respondent No-4 could not deducted whenever his earnings were not enough to recover the LIC premium. Further it is also contended that, there is no specific allegations have been made against the Respondent No-4. Under the above circumstances, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Respondent No-4. Hence sought for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
5. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainant proves that, there is a deficiency in service on the part of Respondents 1 to 4 as alleged.?
2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in her complaint.?
3. What order?
6. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In Negative.
(2) In Negative.
(3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NO.1 & 2:-
7. In order to prove the facts involved in the present case, affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed, she was noted as PW-1. Documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-15 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Manager (L&HPF) of opposite No.1 was filed, who is noted as RW-1. No documents were marked on behalf of Respondents, as no documents were filed by them.
8. It is undisputed fact that policy subscriber Gururnath died on 22-11-2001 leaving behind nominee Smt. Tayamma complainant. Further it is undisputed fact that, he has obtained almost all three policies from the Respondents No-1 to 3 Insurance Company and out of that, one policy has been settled and two disputed policies bearing policy Nos. 661362705 and 661363684 have been repudiated by the Respondent Insurance Company and for which the complainant has made several requests to settle the claim. But the said claim has been rejected by the Respondent Nos 1 to 3.
9. After gone through the pleadings of the parties, and documents made available before this Forum, there are the only two points which are to be mainly considered for to disposal of the case, as they are strongly contended by the other side. The main disputed facts are as under:
1. Whether, the complaint of the complainant is barred by limitation.
2. The policyholder late Gurunath has suppressed the material facts of his health while obtaining the policy,
The Point No-1 is concerned the Respondent Nos 1 to 3 have mainly relied upon the two repudiation letters Nos. Mktg/claims/66a/73/02-03 and Mktg/claims/66a/74/02-03 dt. 19-03-2003 in respect of policy Nos. 661362705 and 661284370 respectively.
We have perused the said letters filed under Ex.P-4 & Ex.P-14, it is very clear that, the claim of the Respondent have been repudiated on the ground that, the policyholder has withheld the material information regarding his health at the time of affecting the assurance and also speaks very clearly that, in case if, the addressee i.e, complainant is not satisfied with the above decision, she has asked to send a representation for consideration of her claim to Zonal Manager within 30 days. Further that letter clearly speaks about the repudiation of the policy No. 661284370. From this it is very clear that, the complainant has moved her representation at the first instance earlier to 19-03-2003 for to settle the claim under the above said policies. Further, it is also very clear that, in reply to the said claim the opposite Insurance Company i.e, Respondent No-2 has written a letter about the repudiation on the ground of suppression of material facts. Further, they also given one month time to make appeal before the Respondent No-3. But it is not the case of the complainant that, she has made any representation within one month from the date of receipt of above said letters. On the perusal of the complaint, at para- 3 & 8 of the complaint the date of death of the husband of the complainant is on 22-11-2001 and the date of repudiation is 19-03-2003 it means if, we have considered 19-03-2003 is the cause of action then, the complaint is to be filed on or before 18-03-2005 even for the sake of argument if, we have taken one month time extra as stated in the repudiation letter for to make an appeal then also the limitation period ends on 18-04-2005 but the present complaint has been filed on 29-08-2012, it means it is almost all seven years delay as contended by the opposite Insurance Company.
The complainant in his complaint has contended that, the cause of action for the present complaint arose on 22-11-2001, 19-03-2003 and on 09-02-2011 and 21-03-2012. In this regard we have perused the death certificate which shows the 22-11-2001 as the date of death. 19-03-2003, 09-02-2011 and 21-03-2012 these are the letter correspondence dates between the complainant and opposites. No doubt the letter dt. 09-02-2011 is the letter written by Respondent No-3 to the complainant But we do not find that, these letters correspondence may give any strength to the case of the complainant that in order to extend their cause of action because subsequent letters correspondence after completion of two years from the date of repudiation i.e, 19-03-2003 will not expand the limitation period. Under such circumstances the contents of opposites Nos. 1 to 3 regarding the cause of action and limitation holds good. On the other hand, the contents of complainant regarding filing on the complainant as it is within the limitation period which starts from 09-02-2011 holds no good. Hence, the claim of the complainant has been considered as barred by limitation.
10. The second Point is concerned, whether the policyholder late Gurunath has suppressed the material facts of his health while obtaining the policy are not? When the complaint itself is barred by limitation and filed after the lapse of almost all seven years as contended by the Respondents, we do not think that question of discussion on the suppression of material facts does not arise. Because when the complaint itself has lost its value on the technical point of limitation then, the rest of the matter for consideration holds no water. Hence, we have not considered the said point. Under the above circumstances, we do not find any allegations made against the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in respect of repudiation of the policy do not give any scope for deficiency in service. There is no specific claim against the Respondent No-4 and it is not the case of the complainant that, due to non remittance of amount the policy has been lapsed and for that, the claim has been repudiated. Hence, the allegations made against the Respondents have not proved and the claim of the complainant in this regard rejected. Hence we have answered Point No-1 in negative.
POINT NO.2:-
11. The complainant failed to prove the fact involved in Point No-1 and thereby he is not entitled for to get any one of the relief’s as prayed in this complaint, accordingly we answered Point Nos.1 & 2 in Negative.
POINT NO.3:-
12. In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
This complaint filed by the complainant against opposite No-1 & 2 is dismissed.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 25-02-13)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. Member. President,
District consumer Forum Raichur District consumer Forum Raichur District consumer Forum Raichur
