BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri. K.V.H.Prasad,B.A.,LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Wednesday the 2nd day of July, 2008
C.C.No. 86/08
Between:
Venipenta Ramana Reddy Alies Venipenta Venkata Ramana Reddy, S/o. Basi Reddy,
Resident of H.No.4-50-28A-10, Arora Nagar, Kurnool. … Complainant
Versus
- The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Kothapeta, Dhone, Kurnool District.
- The Divisional Manger, Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Kadapa. … Opposite party
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.G.Srinivasulu, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri. I. A. Rama Sastry Advocate, for the opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, President)
C.C.No.86/08
1. This case of the complainant is filed seeking direction on the opposite parties to pay him Rs. 2 lakhs towards policy amount, to cancel the loan amount of policy No. 650847296 and RS.25,000/- towards costs alleging himself as holder of New Janaraksha Plan Policy 653096149 dated 27-4-2003, and policy No.650847296 dated 28-7-1990 for an assured amount of Rs.1 lakh under each covering the risk of accident disability benefit also and the complainant sustaining grievous injuries on 18-4-2007 in accident of the auto in which he was traveling resulting into amputation of his right hand and thereby to a disability of 90% and the opposite parties rejecting the claim of the complainant.
2. The opposite parties who caused their appearance in the case in pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant, in spite of a month days time provided in the notice and several adjournment from 16-6-2008, 23-6-2008 and 30-6-2008 subsequent their appearance did not file any written version contesting the case and disowning any of its liability to complainant’s claim. Hence the opposite parties were set exparte and the case is proceeded for disposal on merits.
3. The complainant has enclosed to the complaint as many documents as 10 listed in complaint.
4. The Xerox policy of bond No.653096149 in the absence of any contest by the opposite parties questioning their validity as remaining admitted is marked as Ex.A1 for its appreciation. It shows the complainant as holder of New Janaraksha policy commenced on 28-4-2003 with maturity to 28-4-2019 assuring Rs.1 lakh to the event of accident benefit with profits and vested bonus even if the death was before maturity or even surviving on date of maturity.
5. The Xerox of letter dated 16-11-2006 of L.I.C of India addressed to complainant and the Xerox of status report of policy No.650847296 in the absence of any contest by the opposite parties questioning their validity their remains proved and hence marked as Ex.A2 and A3 for its appreciation.
6. The Ex.A3 envisages that it pertains to policy No.650847296 standing on the name of the complainant as commenced on 28-7-1990 and the maturity of it to July, 2010 and the complainant availing a loan of Rs.20,000/- surrendering the policy on 14-6-2005 vide cheque No.0801930 dated 28-7-2005 and Rs.73,500/- under Ex.A2. In the absence of any cogent material as to the nature of said policy and as to discharge of said loan and the subsistence of said policy without being lapsed with due payment of premium regularly. The entitlement of the complainant for any disability at the liability of opposite parties under this policy cannot be determined, especially when the Xerox of legal notice dated 8-2-2008 (Ex.A4) is not specifying the quantum of amount of claims to deem the claim made their under this policy and another policy in Ex.A1.
7. The Xerox of FIR issued in Cr.No.61/07 under 338 IPC as not contested questioning its validity it remains as admitted document and so marked as Ex.A5 for its appreciation. It envisages of an accident of Kurnool road 10 Kms south to Kurnool near Safa Engineering College, Kurnool resulting injuries to the right hand of the complainant and the said occurrence was due to rash and negligent drive of the auto by its driver. The Xerox of charge sheet filed by the police in J.F.C , Kurnool for the occurrence referred in Ex.A5 being not questioned of its validity by the opposite parties its remaining as admitted documents and so marked as Ex.A6 for its appreciation . The Ex.A6 envisages the offence U/s 368 IPC and as result of injury sustained in said accident the complainant right hand was amputated.
8. The Xerox of MLC pertaining to complainant being not disputed its validity by the opposite party by any contest, the said document is remaining as admitted document and so marked as Ex.A7 for its appreciation. The said Ex.A7 the Xerox of MLC pertaining to complainant takes mention of multiple fractures to the right hand of the complainant.
9. The Xerox of the discharge summary issued by the Yasodha Hospital pertaining to the complainant being not questioned of its validity by the opposite parties by any contest, the said is remaining is admitted document and so marked as Ex.A8 for its appreciation . The said Ex.A8 also says of fractures of both bones of forearm of the complainant and the treatment rendered their to the complainant for his said accidental injuries.
10. The condition No.10 of Ex.A1 dealing with the concept of the events which amount to disability of life assured takes into its scope the events of irrecoverable loss of the entire sight of both eyes or amputation both hand at or above the wrist ankles or amputation of both feet at or above ankles or the amputation of one hand at or above the wrist and one foot at or above the ankles only as disability covered under the policy. Thus, it does not consider as disability cover under Ex.A1 policy an amputation to a single hand and disability occurring on account of it as certified in Ex.A9.
11. Therefore the repudiation of the claim of the complainant made by the Ops vide Ex.A.10 remaining justifiable as their appears any deficiency on their part in settling the claim as far norms of policy conditions.
12. Consequently, the claim of the complainant being not covered under the terms and conditions of Ex.A1 policy at any liability of the opposite parties . The case of the complainant is dismissed for want of merit and force.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 2nd July, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Xerox copy of Policy Bond No.653096149.
Ex.A2. Previous policy bond No.650847296
Ex.A3. Xerox copy of status report of policy No.650847296.
Ex.A4. Xerox copy of legal notice dated 8-2-2008.
Ex.A5. Xerox copy of FIR
Ex.A6. Charge Sheet
Ex.A7. MLC intimation of Govt., General Hospital, Kurnool.
Ex.A8. Discharge Summary issued by Yasodha Hospital
Ex.A9. Disability certificate.
Ex.A10. Letter of opposite party send to the complainant dated 23.1.08.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
-Nil-
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// 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:
Copy was delivered to parties:
