The Branch Manager LIC V/S Smt. Seetamma W/o Late. Shankrappa - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

DCFR 63/07

Smt. Seetamma W/o Late. Shankrappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager LIC - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.Mallanagoud

30 Nov 2007

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. DCFR 63/07

Smt. Seetamma W/o Late. Shankrappa						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Branch Manager LIC						...........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

This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Seetamma against the Respondent Branch Manager LIC of India Branch Office Sindhanoor. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: The Complainant is the wife of late Shankrappa who was working in Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd., Hutti as Under Ground Employee. During his life time her husband Shankrappa had obtained several life insurance policies with Respondents under salary saving scheme including policy No. 661392038 for assured sum of Rs. 30,000/-. Her husband Shankrappa died on 2003 leaving behind her as his legal heir and successors to succeed to his estate including the policy in-question. After the death of her husband she made several requests to the Respondents for settlement of LIC policies. But the Respondent failed to settle the same and finally she filed a complaint before this Forum in DCFR.No. 89/06 which has been allowed by this Forum on 11-06-06. In the said order this Forum has observed in-respect of the present policy No. 661392038 as under: The Respondent shall ascertain the name of nominee of disputed policy No. 661392038 and if it is found that the complainant is the nominee of this policy also, then they shall pay the policy amount with its benefits to the complainant, if not they shall issue a certificate stating that the complainant is not a nominee of this disputed policy to the complainant under the intimation to this Forum. After the disposal of the said case the Respondents has written letter dt. 10-01-07 to the complainant stating that there is no nomination to the said policy and title under policy nomination is open and called upon the complainant to prove the title to the estate of deceased life assured. Thereafter the complainant submitted Pension payment order issued by Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Gulbarga and order passed by this Forum. The said two documents prove that the complainant is the wife of deceased Shankrappa and she is legal representative to succeed to the estate of deceased Shankrappa to the above said policies of Shankarappa. But the Respondents has not at all settled her claim or informed anything in that regard and therefore the complainant issued legal notice dt. 18-06-07 by RPAD calling upon to the Respondent to settle her claim in-respect of the said notice Respondents replied through letter dt. 30-06-07 which is not at all relevant to the claim of the complainant. This attitude of the Respondent in evading settlement amounts to deficiency in service. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction to the Respondents to make payment of the assured sum of Rs. 30,000/- in-respect of policy No. 661392038 along with interest bonus etc., and also compensation of Rs. 60,000/- and in the alternative any other reliefs deems fit. 2. The Respondents Insurance Company appeared through counsel and filed written version admitting that deceased life assured Shankrappa had taken policy No. 661392038 during his life time on 28-03-02 but the nomination was not made at the time of taking of the policy title open. So the complainant is not a consumer as per provision of C.P. Act as such her complaint is not maintainable. The deceased life assured had also taken LIC policies bearing No. (1) 661284521, (2) 661284606, (3) 6612845756, (4) 661312957, (5) 661362588, (6) 661363725, (7) 661363857 and (8) 661366304. As per order of this Forum this Respondent has made payment of these policies. Except policy bearing No. 661392038 in this case there is no nomination/title is open. So the Respondent Corporation has informed the complainant to prove her title namely i.e, to produce Succession Certificate from the competent court of law in order to prove the title to the estate of deceased life assured. The policy containing clause TO WHOM SUM ASSURED PAYABLE states the proposer or his assignor or nominee U/s. 39 of Insurance Act or proving executors or administrators or legal representatives who should take over representation to his estate or limited to the monies payable under this policy from any court of any State or Territory, Union of India. On reading this clause it is clear that the complainant must and should produce the Succession Certificate from the competent court of law. This Respondent has already informed to the complainant regarding nomination and to this Forum as there is no nomination payment is not done. The complainant has submitted Pension Payment Order of Provident Fund issued by Non-Judicial Member cannot be considered for payment of the policy amount and the above orders will not super seeds the Honble Forum order as such payment is not made and accordingly suitable reply is given to the legal notice. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of this Respondent Corporation. Hence for all these reasons Respondent has sought for dismissal of the complaint with cost. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed her sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and got marked (7) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7. In rebuttal the Respondents has filed sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and closed its side. 4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1.Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondents in not settling her claim in-respect policy, as alleged.? 2.Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1.In the affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. There is no dispute that late Shankrappa the husband of the complainant had taken the policy bearing No. 661392038 for assured sum of Rs. 30,000/- under salary saving scheme who was working in Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd., It is the case of the Respondent that there is no mention of name of nominee in the said policy so the complainant was replied to produce the title with estate of deceased life assured by producing Succession Certificate from the competent court of law in order to prove her title. Both the parties have not produced the policy bond in-question but however there is no dispute that non-mention of name of nominee in the said policy. The complainant has produced certified copy of order in DCFR.No.89/06 dt. 11-12-06 of this Forum at Ex.P-2. A perusal of Ex.P-2 goes to show that the present complainant had filed a complaint against very Respondent in DCFR.No.89/06 for settlement of Nine Insurance policies including the present policy. After enquiry this Forum ordered for release of the policy amount etc., in-respect of the (8) policies except the present policy No. 661392038 since there is no mention of name of the complainant as nominee to this policy. However the Respondents were directed to ascertain the name of nominee of disputed policy and if it is found that the complainant is the nominee then they should pay the policy amount with its benefits and if not they should issue a certificate stating that the complainant is not a nominee of this policy under intimation to this Forum. 7. The L.C. for the complainant submitted that after the Order as per Ex.P-2 the complainant requested to Respondent through her letter dt. 23-02-07 vide Ex.P-4 for release of the policy amount by producing copy of judgment order of this Forum at Ex.P-2 and also Pension Payment Order issued by Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Gulbarga at Ex.P-5 but there was no reply by Respondent. Then the complainant got issued legal notice dt. 18-06-07 calling upon to Respondent to settle her policy claim but the Respondent neither settled her claim nor replied anything to the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service. The L.C. for further submitted that as per Order of this Forum at Ex.P-2, this Forum has directed the Respondents to ascertain the name of the nominee and if it is found that the complainant is the nominee of the policy then should pay the policy amount with its benefit and if not they shall issue a certificate stating that the complainant is not nominee under intimation to this Forum. But the Respondent through their letter dt. 30-06-07 at Ex.P-7 have replied by repeating the contents order of this Forum at Ex.P-2 without intimating as to whether the complainant is not a nominee or whether she has to get Succession Certificate from the competent court of law for getting the policy amount. If the Respondent had replied that the complainant is not nominee, then she would have moved appropriate court for getting Succession Certificate as now contended by the Respondent, so non-reply to the letter and legal notice of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. We find considerable force in this argument. As seen above in Order at Ex.P-2 this Forum has observed that out of (9) policies the name of the complainant found in (8) policies and accordingly the Respondent was directed to pay amount in-respect of (8) policies and in-respect of the Ninth policy (present policy) the Respondent was directed to ascertain the name of the nominee from its record and if it is found that the complainant is the nominee of the said policy then pay her the policy amount and if not then issue a certificate that she is not a nominee of the said policy under intimation to this Forum so that the complainant can take appropriate legal steps in-respect of the said policy. But in the reply letter of the Respondent dt. 30-06-07 at Ex.P-7, we do not find any specific reply to the legal notice of the complainant except the repetition of contents of order of this Forum (at Ex.P-2). This letter being a short one and material to discuss, reads as under: Reg: Policy No. 661392038 of late Sri Shankarappa In reply to legal notice served by your advocate Sri. Mallanagouda, Raichur dated 18-06-2007, we would like to bring to your kind notice that in the district forum order dated 11-12-2006 it is clearly mentioned as the respondents shall ascertain the name of nominee of disputed policy No. 661392038 and if its found that the complainant is the nominee of this policy also, then they shall pay the policy amount with its benefits to the complainant. If not they shall issue a certificate stating that the complainant is not a Nominee of this disputed policy to the complainant under the intimation to this Forum. Hence we have informed the position of nomination under the policy as instructed by the District forum. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/- Manager (Claims) This letter even though it is stated as reply letter to the legal notice, but we do not find a single word of reply to the legal notice except reproduction of contents of order of this Forum Ex.P-2. At the cast of repetition it is stated that when this Forum in the said order has issued directions to ascertain the name of the nominee to the disputed policy further records in the Respondents office and if it is found that the complainant is nominee then the Respondent should pay the policy amount and if not then they should issue a certificate accordingly under intimation to this Forum. Even the Respondents have not intimated to this Forum about the compliance of said order Ex.P-2. So the letter of the Respondent at Ex.P-7 cannot be termed as reply to the legal notice of the complainant. At the cast of repetition if the Respondent had replied to the complainants letter at Ex.P-6 & legal notice at Ex.P-7 then the complainant would have taken appropriate steps for Succession Certificate and would not have filed the present complaint. Hence this attitude of the Respondent amounts to deficiency in service. So Point No-1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO:-2 8. The complainant has sought for direction for payment of policy amount but in view of our discussion about the legal hurdle for release of the policy amount which is subject to production of Succession Certificate, the complainant is not entitled for such a relief. However in view of our discussion and finding on Point No-1 holding deficiency in service by the Respondent in not replying to the complainants letter & legal notice which would have enabled her to apply for Succession Certificate at the earliest without knocking the door of this Forum, so we feel it just and proper to award compensation of Rs. 2,000/-. In this view of the matter we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part- only to the extent of not replying to the letter & legal notice of the complainant which made her to file the present complaint. The Respondent shall pay compensation of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant including cost of litigation. The Respondent shall comply this order within (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 30-11-07) Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. N.H. Savalagi, Member. Member. President, Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.

This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Seetamma against the Respondent Branch Manager LIC of India Branch Office Sindhanoor. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: The Complainant is the wife of late Shankrappa who was working in Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd., Hutti as Under Ground Employee. During his life time her husband Shankrappa had obtained several life insurance policies with Respondents under salary saving scheme including policy No. 661392038 for assured sum of Rs. 30,000/-. Her husband Shankrappa died on 2003 leaving behind her as his legal heir and successors to succeed to his estate including the policy in-question. After the death of her husband she made several requests to the Respondents for settlement of LIC policies. But the Respondent failed to settle the same and finally she filed a complaint before this Forum in DCFR.No. 89/06 which has been allowed by this Forum on 11-06-06. In the said order this Forum has observed in-respect of the present policy No. 661392038 as under: The Respondent shall ascertain the name of nominee of disputed policy No. 661392038 and if it is found that the complainant is the nominee of this policy also, then they shall pay the policy amount with its benefits to the complainant, if not they shall issue a certificate stating that the complainant is not a nominee of this disputed policy to the complainant under the intimation to this Forum. After the disposal of the said case the Respondents has written letter dt. 10-01-07 to the complainant stating that there is no nomination to the said policy and title under policy nomination is open and called upon the complainant to prove the title to the estate of deceased life assured. Thereafter the complainant submitted Pension payment order issued by Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Gulbarga and order passed by this Forum. The said two documents prove that the complainant is the wife of deceased Shankrappa and she is legal representative to succeed to the estate of deceased Shankrappa to the above said policies of Shankarappa. But the Respondents has not at all settled her claim or informed anything in that regard and therefore the complainant issued legal notice dt. 18-06-07 by RPAD calling upon to the Respondent to settle her claim in-respect of the said notice Respondents replied through letter dt. 30-06-07 which is not at all relevant to the claim of the complainant. This attitude of the Respondent in evading settlement amounts to deficiency in service. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction to the Respondents to make payment of the assured sum of Rs. 30,000/- in-respect of policy No. 661392038 along with interest bonus etc., and also compensation of Rs. 60,000/- and in the alternative any other reliefs deems fit. 2. The Respondents Insurance Company appeared through counsel and filed written version admitting that deceased life assured Shankrappa had taken policy No. 661392038 during his life time on 28-03-02 but the nomination was not made at the time of taking of the policy title open. So the complainant is not a consumer as per provision of C.P. Act as such her complaint is not maintainable. The deceased life assured had also taken LIC policies bearing No. (1) 661284521, (2) 661284606, (3) 6612845756, (4) 661312957, (5) 661362588, (6) 661363725, (7) 661363857 and (8) 661366304. As per order of this Forum this Respondent has made payment of these policies. Except policy bearing No. 661392038 in this case there is no nomination/title is open. So the Respondent Corporation has informed the complainant to prove her title namely i.e, to produce Succession Certificate from the competent court of law in order to prove the title to the estate of deceased life assured. The policy containing clause TO WHOM SUM ASSURED PAYABLE states the proposer or his assignor or nominee U/s. 39 of Insurance Act or proving executors or administrators or legal representatives who should take over representation to his estate or limited to the monies payable under this policy from any court of any State or Territory, Union of India. On reading this clause it is clear that the complainant must and should produce the Succession Certificate from the competent court of law. This Respondent has already informed to the complainant regarding nomination and to this Forum as there is no nomination payment is not done. The complainant has submitted Pension Payment Order of Provident Fund issued by Non-Judicial Member cannot be considered for payment of the policy amount and the above orders will not super seeds the Honble Forum order as such payment is not made and accordingly suitable reply is given to the legal notice. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of this Respondent Corporation. Hence for all these reasons Respondent has sought for dismissal of the complaint with cost. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed her sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and got marked (7) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7. In rebuttal the Respondents has filed sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and closed its side. 4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1.Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondents in not settling her claim in-respect policy, as alleged.? 2.Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1.In the affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. There is no dispute that late Shankrappa the husband of the complainant had taken the policy bearing No. 661392038 for assured sum of Rs. 30,000/- under salary saving scheme who was working in Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd., It is the case of the Respondent that there is no mention of name of nominee in the said policy so the complainant was replied to produce the title with estate of deceased life assured by producing Succession Certificate from the competent court of law in order to prove her title. Both the parties have not produced the policy bond in-question but however there is no dispute that non-mention of name of nominee in the said policy. The complainant has produced certified copy of order in DCFR.No.89/06 dt. 11-12-06 of this Forum at Ex.P-2. A perusal of Ex.P-2 goes to show that the present complainant had filed a complaint against very Respondent in DCFR.No.89/06 for settlement of Nine Insurance policies including the present policy. After enquiry this Forum ordered for release of the policy amount etc., in-respect of the (8) policies except the present policy No. 661392038 since there is no mention of name of the complainant as nominee to this policy. However the Respondents were directed to ascertain the name of nominee of disputed policy and if it is found that the complainant is the nominee then they should pay the policy amount with its benefits and if not they should issue a certificate stating that the complainant is not a nominee of this policy under intimation to this Forum. 7. The L.C. for the complainant submitted that after the Order as per Ex.P-2 the complainant requested to Respondent through her letter dt. 23-02-07 vide Ex.P-4 for release of the policy amount by producing copy of judgment order of this Forum at Ex.P-2 and also Pension Payment Order issued by Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Gulbarga at Ex.P-5 but there was no reply by Respondent. Then the complainant got issued legal notice dt. 18-06-07 calling upon to Respondent to settle her policy claim but the Respondent neither settled her claim nor replied anything to the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service. The L.C. for further submitted that as per Order of this Forum at Ex.P-2, this Forum has directed the Respondents to ascertain the name of the nominee and if it is found that the complainant is the nominee of the policy then should pay the policy amount with its benefit and if not they shall issue a certificate stating that the complainant is not nominee under intimation to this Forum. But the Respondent through their letter dt. 30-06-07 at Ex.P-7 have replied by repeating the contents order of this Forum at Ex.P-2 without intimating as to whether the complainant is not a nominee or whether she has to get Succession Certificate from the competent court of law for getting the policy amount. If the Respondent had replied that the complainant is not nominee, then she would have moved appropriate court for getting Succession Certificate as now contended by the Respondent, so non-reply to the letter and legal notice of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. We find considerable force in this argument. As seen above in Order at Ex.P-2 this Forum has observed that out of (9) policies the name of the complainant found in (8) policies and accordingly the Respondent was directed to pay amount in-respect of (8) policies and in-respect of the Ninth policy (present policy) the Respondent was directed to ascertain the name of the nominee from its record and if it is found that the complainant is the nominee of the said policy then pay her the policy amount and if not then issue a certificate that she is not a nominee of the said policy under intimation to this Forum so that the complainant can take appropriate legal steps in-respect of the said policy. But in the reply letter of the Respondent dt. 30-06-07 at Ex.P-7, we do not find any specific reply to the legal notice of the complainant except the repetition of contents of order of this Forum (at Ex.P-2). This letter being a short one and material to discuss, reads as under: Reg: Policy No. 661392038 of late Sri Shankarappa In reply to legal notice served by your advocate Sri. Mallanagouda, Raichur dated 18-06-2007, we would like to bring to your kind notice that in the district forum order dated 11-12-2006 it is clearly mentioned as the respondents shall ascertain the name of nominee of disputed policy No. 661392038 and if its found that the complainant is the nominee of this policy also, then they shall pay the policy amount with its benefits to the complainant. If not they shall issue a certificate stating that the complainant is not a Nominee of this disputed policy to the complainant under the intimation to this Forum. Hence we have informed the position of nomination under the policy as instructed by the District forum. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/- Manager (Claims) This letter even though it is stated as reply letter to the legal notice, but we do not find a single word of reply to the legal notice except reproduction of contents of order of this Forum Ex.P-2. At the cast of repetition it is stated that when this Forum in the said order has issued directions to ascertain the name of the nominee to the disputed policy further records in the Respondents office and if it is found that the complainant is nominee then the Respondent should pay the policy amount and if not then they should issue a certificate accordingly under intimation to this Forum. Even the Respondents have not intimated to this Forum about the compliance of said order Ex.P-2. So the letter of the Respondent at Ex.P-7 cannot be termed as reply to the legal notice of the complainant. At the cast of repetition if the Respondent had replied to the complainants letter at Ex.P-6 & legal notice at Ex.P-7 then the complainant would have taken appropriate steps for Succession Certificate and would not have filed the present complaint. Hence this attitude of the Respondent amounts to deficiency in service. So Point No-1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO:-2 8. The complainant has sought for direction for payment of policy amount but in view of our discussion about the legal hurdle for release of the policy amount which is subject to production of Succession Certificate, the complainant is not entitled for such a relief. However in view of our discussion and finding on Point No-1 holding deficiency in service by the Respondent in not replying to the complainants letter & legal notice which would have enabled her to apply for Succession Certificate at the earliest without knocking the door of this Forum, so we feel it just and proper to award compensation of Rs. 2,000/-. In this view of the matter we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part- only to the extent of not replying to the letter & legal notice of the complainant which made her to file the present complaint. The Respondent shall pay compensation of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant including cost of litigation. The Respondent shall comply this order within (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 30-11-07) Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. N.H. Savalagi, Member. Member. President, Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.