BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986) MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
Present: Sri. P.V. Subrahmanyam, B.A. B.L.,President
Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member
Sri G.Sreenivas Rao, M.Sc.,B.Ed.,LL.B., PGADR (NALSAR) Male Member
Thursday, the 14th day of July 2011
C.C. No. 15 of 2011
Between:
1.Smt. Puli Nirmalakumari W/o Devraj
Aged about 48 years, Occ: House hold
R/o H.No.18-128-1, Sukarlabad, Machalipatnam,
Krishna District.
2. P. Devdanam S/o Samuel,
R/o 3-2-154 Netaji Nagar, Sangareddy town,
Medak District. …….Complainants
And
- The Branch Manager, LIC of India,
Sangareddy Branch.
- Divisional Senor Officer/Manager,
LIC of India, Indira Park, Secunderabad.
- Customer Relation Manager,
LIC of India, Divisional officer,
Secunderabad.
- A.O.
Vigilence, LIC of India,
Indira Park, Secunderabad. …Opposite parties
This case came up for final hearing before us on 27-06-2011 in the presence of Sri Joshi Narayana Rao, Advocate for complainant and sri M.Prabhakar Gupta, Advocate for opposite parties, upon hearing arguments of both parties, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
(Per Sri P.V. Subrahmanyam, President)
This complaint is filed under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant towards insurance amount, Rs.10,000/- towards travelling expenses and another sum of Rs.10,000/- towards boarding expenses and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony for not settling the claim.
The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows:
1. Husband of the complainant No.1 and son of complainant No.2 Mr. Puli Devaraj was holder of the policy issued by the opposite parties in respect of policy No.643057804 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- through salary saving scheme. The policy was obtained by Mr. Devaraj while he was working in police department as head constable No.761 and his employer has deducted premium from his salary and remitted to the branch office of opposite party No.1 from 20.3.1993 till 1996. The first complainant is nominee to the said policy. The policy holder Devaraj died on 23.4.1994 while in service due to heart attack leaving behind the complainants as his legal heirs. After the death, the first complainant submitted claim form along with the required documents which was acknowledged by the opposite parties, Hyderabad division on 11.8.1994 and since then she has been making correspondence with the opposite parties for settlement of the death claim but they have been postponing on some pretext or the other. After death of her husband the complainant has been staying at Machilipatnam where her parents have been residing. For the settlement of the death claim she is going round the opposite parties leaving her children in the care and custody of others. The first complainant visited the opposite party No.1 in May, 1995, June 1997, April 1998 and March 1999 from Machlipatnam to Sangareddy by investing money for her travelling expenses with fond hope that she would get her claim amount. The then branch manager of opposite party No.1 has taken original policy bond and assured the first complainant that he would send cheque in her name. She has not received cheque by settling the death claim even after one decade. During June 2009 second complainant happened to visit the first complainant at Machilipatnam who saw her in miserable condition without any financial support. First complainant requested him to pursue the matter. On that the second complainant made complaint to opposite party No.1 on 6.7.2009 and 8.9.2009 for settlement of the death claim. Even after several representations made by him opposite party No.1 did not respond. Complainant No.1 is legally entitled to death benefits under the policy but the opposite party No.1 failed in his duty to settle the claim even though the complainants have been going round the offices of the opposite parties. The first complainant spent about Rs.10,000/- towards travelling expenses and Rs.10,000/- for lodging and boarding.
The second complainant got a legal notice issued to opposite party No.1 marking copy thereof to opposite parties No.2 and 3 requesting to settle the death claim. Opposite parties No.1 to 3 acknowledged the receipt of notice. Opposite party No.1 addressed a letter to opposite parties No.2 on 8.3.2010 by enclosing the copies of documents submitted by first complainant and later opposite party No.4 insisted the second complainant to submit duplicate copy of claim form along with enclosures. Accordingly the second complainant submitted the required papers along with indemnity bond for loss of original copy at the end of opposite party No.1 which was sent through opposite party no.1 on 23.4.2010. The opposite party No.1 acknowledged the same and assured that they would send required papers to opposite party No.4. Even after the receipt of the required papers death claim is not settled. As per the status report issued by the opposite party No.1 no payment history is found, as such it is the duty of the opposite parties to trace out the file and settle the death claim. Hence the complaint.
2. A common counter is filed on behalf of Opposite parties No.1 to 4 which in brief is as follows:-
It is true that the policy in question was secured by Mr.Pulli Devaraj for Rs.1,00,000/- and the first complainant is the nominee of the said policy. The complainants have to prove premium payments from March, 1993 to March, 1996 by producing receipts. Complainant No.1 being wife/nominee is alone entitled to represent the matter but not second complainant who is not class I heir of the deceased. It is not correct that after death of the policy holder the first complainant submitted the claim form along with required documents. She has simply intimated opposite party No.1 on 11.8.1994 regarding the death of life assured. On receiving the information opposite party No.1 sent relevant blank claim forms requesting her to submit the documents such as death certificate, hospital treatment particulars, employer certificate, original policy bond etc. Nearly after a decade i.e. on 26.1.2004 the complainant has submitted the documents and on receipt of the same the opposite parties processed the death claim and found that the said policy was in lapsed condition due to non-payment of premium as such nothing is payable under the policy and hence the opposite parties repudiated the claim. First complainant in her letter dated 14.12.2005 admitted that branch of opposite party No.1 informed her that the said policy was in lapsed condition and sent a reply dt.31.12.2005 to that effect. As it is within the knowledge of the first complainant that the policy was in lapsed condition and nothing is payable under the said policy she kept quiet for all these sixteen years; however filed this complaint with ulterior motive to squeeze money from the opposite parties. The complainant has stated that premium was deducted from the salary of her husband from March, 1993 to march, 1996 and remitted, even though she herself stated that her husband died on 23.4.1994. Therefore the question of deduction of premium from salary of her husband after his death on 23.4.1994 till the year 1996 as stated by her does not arise. The allegation that her claim is not processed is not correct. The claim of the complainant is hopelessly barred by the limitation because it is filed 16 years after the death of life assured and 5 years after the letter of repudiation dated 31.12.2005. The complainant earlier filed a case in the District Legal Service Authority but without prosecuting the same ultimately not pressed the matter. The complaint may therefore may be dismissed with exemplary costs.
3. To substantiate the contentions in the complaint the second complaint filed his evidence affidavit as PW.1 and that of the first complainant as PW.2. The allegations in the said affidavits are almost similar to the averments in the complaint. To prove the contentions in the counter evidence affidavit of opposite party No.2 is filed and contents therein are also similar to the contentions in the counter. Exs.A.1 to A.15 are marked on behalf of the complainant and Ex.B.1 to B.4 are marked on behalf of the opposite parties. Out of the said documents Exs.A.14 and B.1 are marked subject to objection. Both sides have not filed written arguments however oral arguments are advanced. Perused the record.
4. The points for consideration are:
1) Whether the complaint is within the period of limitation?
2) whether the complainants have proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and whether they are entitled to the policy amount and the amounts claimed under various other heads ?
5. The case of the complainants is that the husband of the first complainant, who is son of the second complainant, by name Puli Devaraj worked as head constable in the police department and while in service he obtained a life insurance policy bearing No.643057804 for Rs.1,00,000/- from opposite party No.1 under salary saving scheme and the employer of the said Devaraj deducted premium from his salary from March, 1993 till the year, 1996. It is the further case of the complainants that the said Devaraj died due to heart attack while in service on 23.4.1994 leaving behind the complainants as his legal heirs, there after the first complainant submitted death claim along with required documents to the opposite parties and they have acknowledged the same on 11.8.1994 but failed to settle the death claim so far in spite of going round their offices and issuing notice also. Hence the complaint. The second complainant is nothing to do with this claim. The defense of the opposite parties is that the policy was in lapsed condition by the time of death of policy holder therefore nothing is payable under the said policy as such the claim was repudiated. Another defense taken by opposite parties is that this complaint is filed 16 years after the death of the policy holder and further five years after the repudiation of the claim therefore the complaint is hopelessly barred by the limitation and is liable to be dismissed.
Point No.1)
6. As limitation point is involved the said aspect will be dealt with in the first instance. The case of the complaints is that the first complainant’s husband, who obtained the insurance policy in question, died on 23.4.1994 due to heart attack while in service as head constable in police department and the first complainant is nominee there in. To prove the same Ex.A.1 copy of the insurance policy showing the first complainant as the nominee and Ex.A.2 copy of death certificate are filed. Ex.A.3 is copy of acknowledgment letter of the opposite parties dt.11.8.1994 which shows that they have received letter from the first complainant intimating the death of the policy holder. Ex.B.2 shows that the opposite parties intimated to the first complainant that the policy was in lapsed condition as on the date of death and therefore nothing is payable under the policy and further the claim is barred by limitation.
The learned counsel for the complainant has stated during arguments, while dealing with the limitation aspect that under Ex.A.11 the opposite parties have made a fresh promise to pay the amount on 08.03.2011 therefore fresh period of limitation starts from that date on words. As seen from Ex.A.11 it is xerox copy of a letter dt.08.3.2011 sent by opposite party No.4 to opposite party No.2 along with set of Xerox copies given by the second complainant for perusal and to do the needful. In the said document the learned counsel has referred to the 8th clause mentioned in second page of Ex.A.11 which is status report. The said status report is already marked on behalf of the complainant as Ex.A.15 which shows that no payment history for this policy. Mentioning the fact that there is no payment history in respect of the policy in question does not amount to a fresh promise as contended by the learned counsel for the complainants and therefore the said contention is not acceptable and hence it is held that the complaint is not within the prescribed period of limitation as per Section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act and hence the claim is barred by limitation.
Even otherwise the complainants have not produced receipts to show that premium was paid till the date of death of policy holder, to prove that the contention of the opposite parties that the policy was in lapsed condition by the date of death of the policy holder is not correct. However the learned counsel has referred to Ex.A.14 which is a computer printout showing payment of premium from January 1993 till March, 1996. As seen from Ex.A.1 the date of commencement of the policy is 28.3.1993 and as seen from Ex.A.2 the date of death of the policy holder 23.4.1994. When the policy is commenced from 28.3.1993 it is not known how entries are made in Ex.A.14 that premium was paid from January, 1993. Likewise when Ex.A.2 shows the date of death of the policy holder as 23.4.1994 it is also not known how entries are made in Ex.A.15 that the premium was deducted from his salary up to March, 1996. Therefore Ex.A.14 cannot be relied upon.
In view of the discussion supra it is clear that the complaint is barred by limitation. The point No.1 is decided against the complainants.
Point No.2)
7. In view of the finding on point No.1 above there is no need to decide point No.2.
8. In the result the complaint is dismissed as barred by limitation. No costs.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this 14th day of July 2011.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER
