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
Thursday the 7th day of August, 2008
C.C.No. 136/07
Between:
Machapogu Eswaramma, W/o. Late Machapogu Kukkanna,
R/o. H.No.4/53 B, Nidzur Village and Post, Kurnool Mandal and District,At present R/o. H.No.1/165, Mamidalapadu Village, Kurnool (M and Dist) Complainant
Versus
1. The Branch Manager, The ING Vysya Life Insurance Company (Pvt.) Limited,
Ucon Plaza, Park Road, Kurnool.
2. The Vice President , Head - Customer Services, The ING Vysya Life Insurance Company (Pvt) Limited,
Gold Hill Square, 1st Floor, 690, Hosur Road,Begur Hubli, Bangalore, Karnataka State.
Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. B. Chandrudu, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri. A. Rama Subba Reddy, Advocate, for opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Smt. C.Preethi, Lady Member)
C.C.136/07
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/s 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 seeking a direction on opposite parties to pay an of Rs.2,28,500/- with interest, cost of the petition and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The gist of the complaint of the complainant is that the complainant is the wife of the deceased Mashapogu Kukkanna, who has taken a policy under “Creating Life – Child Protection Plan” with opposite parties by paying Rs.6,538/- as premium for assured sum of Rs.1 lakh and the policy commenced from 28-3-2005 to 28-3-2021. The policy holder was murdered on 5-7-2006 and the complainant, thereafter, submitted relevant copies to opposite party No.1 for settlement of the policy but the opposite party No.1 did neither replied nor paid the amount. Finally on 24-7-2007 the complainant got issued legal notice and the opposite party No.1 did not reply to the said notice also. The above lapsive conduct of opposite parties constrained the complainant to file this complaint in this forum.
3. In substantiation of her case the complainant relied on the following documents viz., (1) policy along with conditions, (2) premium receipt, (3) letter dated 9-3-2007 of opposite party to complainant and (4) office copy of legal notice dated 24-2-2007 along with two postal receipts besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of her complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A4 for its appreciation in this case and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filling written version of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 adopted the written version of opposite party No.1.
5. The written version of opposite parties admits that Mashapogu Kukkanna husband of the complainant has taken a policy bearing No.00200473 on 31-3-2005 and the premium payment was opted was yearly falling due on 28th March every year first premium under the policy was paid on 31-3-2005 and the 2nd yearly premium due on 28-3-2006 was not paid by the policy holder even after expiry of grace period of 30 days allowed under the policy. Hence, policy lapsed from 28-3-2006 . Clause 5 of the conditions applicable to basic policy and riders title payment of premium and grace period provides that “after the date of policy commencement any premium due must be paid not latter than 30 days from its due date any un paid premium is deductable from the benefits that may arise during the 30 day grace period. If the premiums due or not paid within grace period the policy lapsed. The date of lapse shall be the date of earliest un paid premium . The company shall immediately their on cease to be liable to pay the sums assured under lapsed polices , except as stated under the non forfeiture provisions of this policy , only and unless the policy has been fully reinstated . A lapsed policy shall arise to participate in the profits of the company from the lapse date’’. On 8-2-2007 the opposite parties received intimation as to the demise of Kukkanna on 5-6-2006 , as the policy was already in lapsed state the opposite party repudiated the death claim proved by the complainant and the repudiation letter sent by opposite party to the complainant on 7-3-2007 . The said letter was returned non delivered to the opposite parties. It further submits the complainant filed this complaint with no cause of action as a repudiation made by opposite parties was for valid reasons and lastly seeks for the dismissal of complaint with exemplary cost .
6. The opposite parties in support of their case did not mark any documents but relied on the sworn affidavit of opposite party No.1 and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties ?.
8. It is the case of the complainant that her husband M. Kukkanna has taken “Creating Life-Child Protection Plan” policy with opposite parties on 28-3-2005 by paying Rs.6,538/- as premium for first installments. The policy holder Kukkanna died on 5-7-2006 and a claim was preferred by the complainant for assured amount which was repudiated by the opposite parties. On the other side the opposite parties submits that the policy commenced from 28-3-2005 and first installment was paid. The second yearly premium due falls on 28-3-2006 which was not paid by the policy holder after even after expiry of grace period of 30 days. Hence the policy of kukkanna is in lapsed condition , hence the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs .
9. The complainant did not place any material to show that the second premium due on 28-3-2006 was paid to show the policy alive. It was strongly argued by the counsel of opposite parties that the second premium due on 28-3-2006 was not paid by the policy holder and the policy was in lapsed condition. When the policy holder died on 5-6-2006 . When the policy was in lapsed condition payment of assured amount to the nominee on the demise of policy holder does not arise. Hence, no payment of assured amount can be made by the opposite parties to the nominee. In the absence of any material to show that the second premium was paid by the policy holder, the complainant can not seek for payment of assured amount under the above policy on the demise of policy holder. Hence, the complainant is not remaining entitled of any of the reliefs sought in the complaint.
10. Hence, the complaint 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 7th day of August, 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. Policy along with terms and conditions.
Ex.A2. Premium receipt.
Ex.A3. Letter, dated 9-3-2007 of opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A4. Office copy of legal notice, dated 24-2-2007 along with two
Postal receipts.
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 party.
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
