O R D E R
Per Sri M.V.L.Radha Krishna Murthy, Member:
This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to settle the claims under policy numbers 671151508, 671794757 and to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (approximately) to the complainant and also to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards costs.
The averments of complaint in brief are as follows:
The complainant is the brother of one D.Venkata Krishna Rao who insured his life and obtained policies bearing numbers 671151508 for Rs.1,00,000/- and 671794757 for Rs.5,00,000/- from 1st opposite party at Vinukonda, Guntur District. During his life time, the insured changed the nominee of both policies and nominated the complainant as his lawful nominee for both policies.
The brother of complainant died on 12-08-10. After the death of insured, the complainant being the lawfully accepted nominee by both opposite parties, he intimated about the death of his brother vide letter dt.17-08-10 and requested to settle the claim of the aforesaid policies. The complainant submitted claim statements as per the procedure for settlement of the same. The 1st opposite party without settling the said policies directed the complainant to obtain succession certificate from the Court of Law to enable its office to proceed further, assigning the reason that “Form of Change of Nomination” does not contain the signature of the life assured. Hence, the title with regard to the said claim is deemed as open title vide its letter dt.23-09-10. The complainant again made a representation along with the change of nomination letters wherein the opposite party accepted the change of nomination of complainant for both policies. On receipt of letter dt.13-11-10, the complainant got issued legal notice demanding the opposite parties to settle the claim under the above said policies without succession certificate. The opposite parties 1 and 2 received the said notice and acknowledged the same. The 2nd opposite party sent reply notice to complainant assigning the same reason. The opposite parties accepted the change of nomination of complainant and served acknowledgements dt.13-07-05 during the life time of assured and status reports also discloses that the present nominee of the assured is Raghava Rao, the complainant herein. The reason assigned by opposite parties is not valid in the eye of law. As per Insurance Act in the event of death of assured, the nominee is entitled for recovery of amounts payable by the insurance company. The opposite parties intentionally harassing the complainant causing much mental agony without settling the claims. Hence, the complaint.
2nd opposite party filed its version and the same was adopted by 1st opposite party, which is in brief as follows:
The complaint is not maintainable either under law or on facts. It is true that policy holder obtained two policies one for Rs.1,00,000/- and another for Rs.5,00,000/- from 1st opposite party. The policy holder died on 12-08-2010. While submitting the claim statements by the complainant, the 1st opposite party directed him to obtain succession certificate from Court of law to proceed further in the area of claim settlement, assigning the reason that ‘Form of Change of Nomination’ does not contain the signature of the life assured, hence, the title with regard to the said claim is deemed to be “open title” vide its letter dt.23-09-10. Later the same thing was brought to the notice of complainant by 2nd opposite party. The complainant failed to comply the objection posed by opposite parties i.e., to produce succession certificate. No deficiency of service can be attributed to opposite parties. Though the complainant’s name was mentioned as nominee in the Change of Nomination Form in place of his wife, when the said nomination was not signed by the life assured, the said change of nomination holds no good and is invalid in the eye of law. Even otherwise since the wife of deceased policy holder is alive, the complainant has to approach the Civil Court only to get proper relief considering the technicality lying while presenting the defective Change of Nomination Form by the deceased policy holder. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
The complainant and 2nd opposite party filed their respective affidavits in support of their contentions reiterating the same.
On behalf of complainant Ex.A1 to A13 are marked and Ex.B1 and B2 are marked on behalf of opposite parties.
Now the points for consideration are
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether the nomination accepted by opposite parties is valid?
- To what relief?
POINTS 1 & 2
The case of complainant is that his brother insured his life under two policies with 1st opposite party for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- respectively, that during the life time of assured he exercised the change of nomination in favour of complainant and that the said change of nomination was registered and accepted by opposite parties, that after the death of his brother he made a claim for assured amount being the nominee of assured but the opposite parties have not settled the claim on the ground that the Change of Nomination Form does not contain the signature of assured, therefore, the said nomination is invalid, therefore opposite parties directed the complainant to submit succession certificate in order to settle the claim and that therefore, there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
The case of opposite parties is that the change of nomination exercised by the life assured is invalid nomination since it does not contain the signature of the assured and that therefore they have not settled the claim, as complainant has not submitted succession certificate as required by them and that therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
It is not in dispute that the deceased life assured obtained two policies one for Rs.1,00,000/- and another for Rs.5,00,000/- from 1st opposite party and that the deceased assured died on 12-08-10. As seen from Ex.B1 and B2, the Forms of Change of Nomination, they does not contain the signature of life assured but the said Forms of Change of Nomination are registered by opposite parties and the name of complainant was mentioned as nominee in Ex.A2 and A3 status reports of the policies in question. As seen from Ex.A5 and A6, the opposite parties have also accepted the change of nomination in favour of the complainant. Subsequent to the claim of complainant, the opposite parties addressed letter dt.23-09-10 under Ex.A8 stating that they found that the change of nomination was defectively registered since the “Form of Change of Nomination” does not contain the signature of life assured. Hence, the title with regard to the said claim is deemed as open title and therefore, they requested the complainant to submit succession certificate. On receipt of Ex.A8, complainant again addressed a letter dt.28-09-10 under Ex.A9 requesting the opposite parties to consider his claim as nomination was accepted by them. For which opposite parties again addressed another letter dt.13-11-10 to the complainant under Ex.A10 repeating the request of opposite parties to submit succession certificate as life assured has not singed in the Change of Nomination Forms and as such the nomination became invalid. The Change of Nomination Form as already stated above does not contain the signature of life assured. However, the said defective nominations were wrongly accepted by opposite parties. Since the said nomination forms does not contain the signature of life assured even though they are accepted by the opposite parties, they are invalid nominations. Even though the nominations (Ex.B1 and B2) are defective they were wrongly accepted and registered by opposite parties. Therefore, the said act of opposite parties i.e., accepting the defective nomination, amounts to deficiency of service. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the mental agony suffered by complainant.
However as the deceased life assured has not signed in Ex.B1 and B2 Change of Nomination Forms, the said nominations are invalid and that therefore the complainant cannot be treated as nominee of the deceased life assured. Even though it was alleged by the opposite parties that the wife of life assured was alive, no evidence is placed by them to that effect and there is no whisper about the wife of life assured in the complaint also. In those circumstances, it can be said that opposite parties 1 and 2 are justified in demanding succession certificate for settling the claim of complainant. However, the complainant is at liberty to obtain succession certificate and claim for the insured amount of his deceased brother life assured, since opposite parties have alleged that the wife of deceased insured was alive. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the foregoing discussion, it can be safely concluded that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties for accepting the defective nomination and the change of nomination registered and accepted by opposite parties is invalid. Accordingly the issues 1 and 2 are answered.
POINT No.3
The complainant claimed compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the mental agony suffered by him and also claimed Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses. The amounts claimed by the complainant are too high and they are imaginary. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of case, we feel that awarding compensation of Rs.5000/- and awarding costs of Rs.1000/- would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part in terms as indicated below:
1. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are hereby directed to pay Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation to the complainant.
2. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are further directed to pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the complainant towards costs of complaint.
3. The claim made by the complainant regarding the insured amount is dismissed.
4. Amounts ordered above shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall carry interest at 9% p.a. till the date of realization.
Typed to my dictation by the Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 28th day of July 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.Nos. |
DATE |
DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS
|
A1 |
10-09-10 |
Copy of claim statements of both the policies with covering letter |
A2 |
|
Status report of policy No.671151508 |
A3 |
|
Status report of policy No.671794757 |
A4 |
04-09-10 |
Death certificate of D.Venkata Krishna Rao |
A5 |
13-07-05 |
Acknowledgement of change of nomination for policy No. 671151508 |
A6 |
13-07-05 |
Acknowledgement of change of nomination for policy No. 671794757 |
A7 |
17-08-10 & 10-09-10 |
Letters from complainant to 1st opposite party (2 in number) |
A8 |
23-09-10 |
Letter from 1st opposite party to complainant |
A9 |
28-09-10 |
Representation by complainant to 1st opposite party |
A10 |
13-11-10 |
Letter from 2nd opposite party to complainant |
A11 |
19-11-10 |
O/c. of registered legal notice got issued by complainant to opposite parties 1 and 2 |
A12 |
|
Postal acknowledgements (2 in number) |
A13 |
30-11-10/ 04-12-10 |
Reply letter from 2nd opposite party |
For opposite parties:
B1 |
28-10-93 |
Policy certificate bearing No.671151508 |
B2 |
28-12-99 |
Policy certificate bearing No.671794757 |
PRESIDENT
