The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Sindhanoor V/S Sunitha Bai D/o. Late. Mahantappa, Lingasugur, - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/10/22

Sunitha Bai D/o. Late. Mahantappa, Lingasugur, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Sindhanoor - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. Mallangouda

28 Jul 2010

ORDER

Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/22

Sunitha Bai D/o. Late. Mahantappa, Lingasugur,						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Raichur General Manager, Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd., Hutti The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Sindhanoor						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

By Sri. Pampapathi, President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant Sunita Bai under the guardianship of her natural mother and next friend Smt.Mahadevi W/o. Late Mahantappa against Opposites 1 to 3 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposites to make the payment of LIC amount pertaining to Policy No. 661217761 assured sum of Rs. 25,000/- 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 complainants case are that, her father Mahantappa was an employee under opposite No-3, he purchased two LIC policies at his life time, among those policies one policy No. 661217761 is not settled. Mahantappa died on 14-03-08 during his service, thereafter his nominee/complainant Sunita Bai claimed the policy amount pertaining to the policy in question through her mother, but opposite No- 2 not settled her claim. Finally the complainant through her mother sent legal notice through counsel and requested the opposite Nos. 1 to 3 to settle the claim amount, but opposite No-1 & 2 LIC and opposite No-3 employer of the deceased have not settled the claim. Opposite No-1 to 3 have shown their negligence in settling her claim and caused delay in replying the reasons for not settling the claim, as such she filed this complaint for the reliefs as prayed in it. 3. Opposite Nos-1 & 2 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 policy in question is a marriage endowment policy and as per the policy terms and conditions, the amount is payable only after maturity of the policy subject to deduction of any outstanding loan etc., Further it is contended that, as per the policy condition the maturity proceeds will be payable on 28-03-2013 to the complainant Sunita Bai after deduction of gap premium and loan availed with interest etc., same was intimated to the complainant vide letter dt. 08-06-10. Further it is contended that, this opposites LIC has also intimated about the loan availed by the late Mahantappa and about the conditions for releasing of original bond. But by suppressing all these material facts, complainant has approached this Honble Forum with false complaint. Complaint has no merit and there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of these opposites. 4. Opposite No-3 though it has appeared through its counsel, but not filed written version on their side. 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 the opposites 1 to 3 in not settling her claim in respect of policy in question 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. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of natural mother and guardian of complainant was filed, she was noted as PW-1. Documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Manager (L&HPF) of opposite No-1 was filed, who is noted as RW-1. Documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 are marked. 8. It is undisputed fact that policy subscriber Mahantappa died on 14-03-08 during his service leaving behind nominee Sunita Bai who is his daughter and his wife by name Smt. Mahadevi. It is also undisputed fact that, the late Mahantappa was availed the policy under the salary saving scheme while he was working under the opposite No-3. In support of her claim the complainant relied on documents at Ex.P-1, to Ex.P-5 which are the Death Certificate of late Mahantappa, Status Reports issued by opposite LIC and Letters written by the complainant to the opposites. 9. On perusal of Ex.P-1, it is very clear that, the father of the minor complainant was died on 14-03-08. On perusal of Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 it is very clear that, the late Mahantappa was holding policy bearing No. 662273779 and 661217761 during his life time under the salary saving scheme. Further it is also clear that, the complainant Sunita Bai is the nominee in policy No. 661217761 and she is entitled to claim the policy amount along with other benefits. Further it is also very clear from the Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-5 i.e, letters written to the opposites to claim her policy amount. Now the question before us is that, even in spite of all these documents why the opposites have not settled the claim of the complainant, for this, we have perused the documents and pleadings of the opposites. Particularly on perusal of the Ex.R-3 i.e, Policy Certificate No. 661217761, it is very clear that, the policy in question is a Marriage Endowment Policy and payment is to be made and events on the happening of which they are to be made i.e, on the stipulated date of maturity. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the nominee i.e, complainant is entitled to claim the policy amount only after its maturity date 28-03-2013 as contended by the opposite Insurance Company but not earlier to that. The claim of the complainant in this regard, is a pre matured one. The opposite Insurance Company has rightly informed to the complainant through its letter dt. 08-06-10 i.e, through Ex.R-2 about the payment of the policy amount. 10. Further on perusal of Ex.R-1 i.e, details about the Marriage Endowment Policy Plan terms and conditions under the head of Death Claim at Para-g it is very clear that, when and under what condition policy amount will be paid to the claimant under the policy. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that, not settling of the claim under the policy by the opposite LIC is not amounting to deficiency in service on the part of the opposites. 11. Other contention of the complainant with regard to delay caused in replying to the complainant by the opposites is concerned, when the main claim of the complainant in respect of payment of the policy amount itself is a pre matured one and it is against the policy terms and conditions and same has been intimated through Ex.R-2 by the opposites to the complainant, it cannot be said that, the claim of the complainant is proper and genuine one. Under such circumstances, allegations made against opposites are not the ground to consider this claim of the complainant, accordingly we have not noticed any kind of deficiency in service on the part of opposites. Hence we answered Point No-1 in negative. 12. The complainant failed to prove the fact involved in Point No-1 and thereby she is not entitled for to get any one of the reliefs as prayed in this complaint, accordingly we answered Point Nos.1 & 2 in Negative. POINT NO.3:- 13. 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 Nos-1 to 3 is dismissed. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 28-07-10) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.

By Sri. Pampapathi, President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant Sunita Bai under the guardianship of her natural mother and next friend Smt.Mahadevi W/o. Late Mahantappa against Opposites 1 to 3 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposites to make the payment of LIC amount pertaining to Policy No. 661217761 assured sum of Rs. 25,000/- 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 complainants case are that, her father Mahantappa was an employee under opposite No-3, he purchased two LIC policies at his life time, among those policies one policy No. 661217761 is not settled. Mahantappa died on 14-03-08 during his service, thereafter his nominee/complainant Sunita Bai claimed the policy amount pertaining to the policy in question through her mother, but opposite No- 2 not settled her claim. Finally the complainant through her mother sent legal notice through counsel and requested the opposite Nos. 1 to 3 to settle the claim amount, but opposite No-1 & 2 LIC and opposite No-3 employer of the deceased have not settled the claim. Opposite No-1 to 3 have shown their negligence in settling her claim and caused delay in replying the reasons for not settling the claim, as such she filed this complaint for the reliefs as prayed in it. 3. Opposite Nos-1 & 2 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 policy in question is a marriage endowment policy and as per the policy terms and conditions, the amount is payable only after maturity of the policy subject to deduction of any outstanding loan etc., Further it is contended that, as per the policy condition the maturity proceeds will be payable on 28-03-2013 to the complainant Sunita Bai after deduction of gap premium and loan availed with interest etc., same was intimated to the complainant vide letter dt. 08-06-10. Further it is contended that, this opposites LIC has also intimated about the loan availed by the late Mahantappa and about the conditions for releasing of original bond. But by suppressing all these material facts, complainant has approached this Honble Forum with false complaint. Complaint has no merit and there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of these opposites. 4. Opposite No-3 though it has appeared through its counsel, but not filed written version on their side. 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 the opposites 1 to 3 in not settling her claim in respect of policy in question 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. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of natural mother and guardian of complainant was filed, she was noted as PW-1. Documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Manager (L&HPF) of opposite No-1 was filed, who is noted as RW-1. Documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 are marked. 8. It is undisputed fact that policy subscriber Mahantappa died on 14-03-08 during his service leaving behind nominee Sunita Bai who is his daughter and his wife by name Smt. Mahadevi. It is also undisputed fact that, the late Mahantappa was availed the policy under the salary saving scheme while he was working under the opposite No-3. In support of her claim the complainant relied on documents at Ex.P-1, to Ex.P-5 which are the Death Certificate of late Mahantappa, Status Reports issued by opposite LIC and Letters written by the complainant to the opposites. 9. On perusal of Ex.P-1, it is very clear that, the father of the minor complainant was died on 14-03-08. On perusal of Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 it is very clear that, the late Mahantappa was holding policy bearing No. 662273779 and 661217761 during his life time under the salary saving scheme. Further it is also clear that, the complainant Sunita Bai is the nominee in policy No. 661217761 and she is entitled to claim the policy amount along with other benefits. Further it is also very clear from the Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-5 i.e, letters written to the opposites to claim her policy amount. Now the question before us is that, even in spite of all these documents why the opposites have not settled the claim of the complainant, for this, we have perused the documents and pleadings of the opposites. Particularly on perusal of the Ex.R-3 i.e, Policy Certificate No. 661217761, it is very clear that, the policy in question is a Marriage Endowment Policy and payment is to be made and events on the happening of which they are to be made i.e, on the stipulated date of maturity. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the nominee i.e, complainant is entitled to claim the policy amount only after its maturity date 28-03-2013 as contended by the opposite Insurance Company but not earlier to that. The claim of the complainant in this regard, is a pre matured one. The opposite Insurance Company has rightly informed to the complainant through its letter dt. 08-06-10 i.e, through Ex.R-2 about the payment of the policy amount. 10. Further on perusal of Ex.R-1 i.e, details about the Marriage Endowment Policy Plan terms and conditions under the head of Death Claim at Para-g it is very clear that, when and under what condition policy amount will be paid to the claimant under the policy. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that, not settling of the claim under the policy by the opposite LIC is not amounting to deficiency in service on the part of the opposites. 11. Other contention of the complainant with regard to delay caused in replying to the complainant by the opposites is concerned, when the main claim of the complainant in respect of payment of the policy amount itself is a pre matured one and it is against the policy terms and conditions and same has been intimated through Ex.R-2 by the opposites to the complainant, it cannot be said that, the claim of the complainant is proper and genuine one. Under such circumstances, allegations made against opposites are not the ground to consider this claim of the complainant, accordingly we have not noticed any kind of deficiency in service on the part of opposites. Hence we answered Point No-1 in negative. 12. The complainant failed to prove the fact involved in Point No-1 and thereby she is not entitled for to get any one of the reliefs as prayed in this complaint, accordingly we answered Point Nos.1 & 2 in Negative. POINT NO.3:- 13. 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 Nos-1 to 3 is dismissed. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 28-07-10) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.