BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 70/11.
THIS THE 19th DAY OF OCTOBER 2011.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Smt. Lakshmi W/o. Linganna, Age_____
years, household, R/o. Chair Bajar, Mangalwar Pet, Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTY :- The Branch Manager, Life Insurance
Corporation of India, Branch Office, Station Road, Raichur.
Date of institution :- 03-10-2011.
Date of disposal :- 19-10-2011.
Complainant represented by Sri. Basavaraj G.Y., 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.
ORDER ON ADMISSION
This is the complaint filed by the complainant Smt. Lakshmi against LIC of India for to direct the opposite to pay assured sum of Rs. 50,000/- under the policy bearing No. 665031875 of insured deceased son with interest and other benefits.
2. Heard regarding the admission of this complaint, perused the facts pleaded and documents filed along with this complaint, In view of the facts and circumstances of this case. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether this complaint is fit to be admitted for to proceed with against opposite LIC of India on the pleadings.
2. What order.
3. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
1) In Negative.
2) In view of our finding on Point No-1, we proceed to pass the final order for the following.
REASONS
POINT NO.1:-
4. As per the facts pleaded by the complainant, who is a nominee under the policy subscribed by her late son Vijaykumar that her son Vijaykumar died on 04-08-10 due to accidental death as submitted in Para-3 of her complaint. The date of the risk under the policy commencing from 28-10-09.
5. According to her further pleadings at Para-3, her son Vijaykumar died accidentally, but she no where stated in her complaint, the manner in which the said accident took place, what type of accident it was, how her son died in such accident. We have sought certain clarifications in this regard from the learned advocate for complainant at the time of hearing on admission. But he not gave required acceptable explanations, not amended his complaint regarding the nature of accident said to have taken place and the manner in which her son died in such accident.
6. The learned advocate for complainant submitted FIR and UDR Report filed by the police in respect of the said death of Vijaukumar, in which, it is stated by the police that, such UDR was registered as per the information given by one informant Mohd. Kasim. According to the complaint filed by him the said Vijaykumar died by drowning in the well water two days prior to 04-02-10, death certificate is not reveals any of the reasons for his death. Under the said circumstances, we are of the view that, the complainant trying to suppress the real facts and circumstances pertaining to the death of her son Vijaykumar only with an intention to get monetary benefits from the opposite LIC of India to over come non entitlement clause under the policy as her son committed suicide in one year we have no other go to accept UDR Report that the death of Vijaykumar was suicidal and not accidental. In such circumstances, it is not a fit case to admit for further enquiry, accordingly this point is answered in negative.
POINT NO.2:-
7. In view of our finding on Point No-1, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is rejected U/sec. 12(3) of C. P. Act.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 19-10-2011)
Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. President,
District Forum Raichur. District ForumRaichur.
