BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY PRESENT:Sri. P.V.Subrahmanyam, B.A,B.L., President. Smt.U.Sunita, M.A., Lady Member. Sri.Mekala. Narsimhareddy, M.A,LL.B.,P.G.D.C.P.L Male Member. Thursday, the 12th day of June, 2008 CC.NO.05 /2007 Between: B.Tallari Pochamma W/o Late Tallari Lingaiah, Aged 65 yrs, Occu: Labour, R/o Raopally (v), Manoor (M), Medak District. … complainant. And 1. The Branch Manager, A.P.Grameena Vikas Bank, (Manjeera Grameena Bank), Regode Branch, Medak District. 2. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Sangareddy Branch, District Medak. … Opposite parties. This case came up before us for final hearing on 04.06.2008 in the presence of Sri C.Narsing Raj, Advocate for complainant and Sri Joshi Narayana Rao Advocate for the OP.No.1 and Sri P.Rama Rao, Advocate for Opposite party No.2 on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this forum delivered the following. O R D E R ( Per Smt U.Sunita, Lady Member) The complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complaint with prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay the insurance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest 18% p.a., and Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and mental agony. -2- The brief facts of the complainant are that the complaint’s husband Talari Lingaiah was having Manjeera Surksha Saving Account bearing No.137 with Bank of opposite party No.1 are the Late Talari Lingaiah having the balance of Rs.1,030/- in his account the complaint further stated as per the terms of the Manjeera Suraksha account after death of the account holder the bank would pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the legal heirs. The complainant stated that on 25.05.2004 while her husband was working in his fields he was accidentally bitten by a snake and immediately shifted to Government hospital Sangareddy and he died while under going treatment. Talari Lingaiah died leaving behind him, his wife i.e., complainant and 3 sons namely, Nagaiah, Ratnaiah and David as his legal heirs. After the death of the deceased the complainant informed the same to opposite party No.1 orally within one month. On 28.08.2004 the complainant issue a letter to OP.No.1 informing about the death of her husband due to snake bite and also requested OP to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as per the term No.4 of Manjeera Surshaka Scheme but the opposite party did not pay the said amount.. The complainant further stated that on 25.10.2005 she got issued notice to opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.1,00,000/-. The opposite party No.1 received the notice and issue reply dt.31.10.2005 admitting the receipt of the reporting of death of deceased Lingaiah and the opposite party No.1 informed their preparedness to extended it’s service in settling the insurance claim. After receiving of the said reply notice the complainant sent the death certificate, legal heir certificate, voter identy card by letter dt.28.12.2005 through her counsel and same is served to opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 given reply dt.04.10.2005 acknowledging the receipt of the letter along with enclosures and further requested to submit the claim form duly filled in along with the enclosure to enable opposite party No.1 to follow up the matter . The complainant further stated that she filed the claim form and sent the same along with enclosurers through a letter dt.01.2.2006 by -3- Registered post with acknowledgement due. The same was served on OP.No.1 and they addressed a letter to OP.No.2 with a request to settle the claim of the complainant. Inspite of repetated pursuance by the complainant the OP.No.1 and 2 no information is given and the OP.No.1 is avoiding to settle the claim. Hence this complainat is filed with a request to direct the opposite parties to pay the claim amount Rs.1,00,000/- with interest 18% and also pay Rs.25,000/- compensation and mental agony. The opposite party No.1 filed counter admitted that the complainant’s husband was the account holder of the OP.No.1 under Manjeera Surakasha Scheme bearing account No.137 and that was having balance amount of Rs.1,030/- in his account., the opposite party No.1 has insured account of deceased Lingaiah with OP.No.2 as per the Manjeera Surakasha Scheme when the account holder dies due to un natural death only entitled for the benefit i.e., Rs.1,00,000/- as per the terms of the policy the legal heir of the account holder should informed OP.No.1 within 30 days of the accident and the opposite party No.1 arrange the claim through OP.No.2 within 90 days. The opposite party denying that on 25.05.2004 while the deceased was working in his field he was accidently bitten by a snake and was immediately shifted to the Government hospital at Sangareddy. Where he died under going treatment is false story created by the complainant for claiming the benefits. The opposite party No.1 further denying that the complainant informed to the opposite party about the death of the deceased orally within one month and it is true that the complainant reported the matter to the opposite party No.1 through the Registered letter on 27\28.08.2004 informing the death of her husband and the reasons shown in the complaint is not correct and further denyed that the OP.No.1 failed to pay amount. -4- The Opposite party No.1 stated that the complainant got issued a legal notice dt.25.10.2005 to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and the opposite party No.1 gave reply on 31.10.2005 admitting the intimation of death through post and also extended the service in settling insurance claim and the OP.no.1 further stated that the complainant sent the copy of death certificate legal heir certificate and voter identy card through her counsel through letter dt.28.12.2005 which is also served on OP.No.1 who gave reply on 04.10.2005 along with enclosurers and requested to submit that the claim form duly filled in along with enclosurs to enable to OP.No.1 to make follow up to OP.No.2 in a settling the claim which was received by the counsel for the complainant on 05.01.2006. The OP.No.1 denyied that the OP.No.1 committed deficiency of service along with OP.No.2 hence the OP.No.1 & OP.No.2 jointly liable to pay amount with interest and costs, and the OP.No.1 further stated the complainant did not mentioned date of death of deceased in her representation which was received by OP.No.1 on 30.08.2004 and the same was the OP.no.1 bank has forward to the insurance company for arrange the claim form vide letter No.Misc./04-05/38, dt.29.10.2004 and the insurance company has sent the claim form in the month of November, 2004 and requesting the OP.No.1 to fill it and send the same along with documents i.e., 1)death certificate II) F.I.R III) P.M.E.Report IV) legal certificate. Accordingly the OP.No.1 bank officials requested the complainant to full fill the required the formalities to enable them to arrange the insurance amount through United India Insurance Company Limited while sending the letter registered post dt.26.02.2005 even after receipt of the letter the complainant did not comply the requirements as desired by the insurance company for its settlement. Subsequently the complainant issued a legal notice through her counsel dt.25.10.2005 by mis representing the fact of the death of Late Lingaiah due to snake bite and also informing that deceased has also having three sons. The complainant got sent another legal notice dt.28.12.2005 along with Xerox copies of documents and OP.No.1 sent reply to the notice while enclosing the claim form requesting to the complainant to fill up and send the same along with required enclosurers and after receipt of documents it was sent to the OP.No.2 whose sent the letter No.051403/MSSB/4653\05, -5- dt.02.1.2006 addressed to OP.no.1 asking certain the details about the date of death etc., It is further stated that the complainant has filed P.L.C No.97/2006 before the District Legal Services, Sangareddy against the OPs herein claming the compensation amount and the said PLC was closed as the OP.no.2 herein have not accepted for the settlement and the complainant has suprresed for the fact of filing of PLC before District Legal Services, Sangareddy. The OP.No.1 further stated that the deceased was having three sons namely Nagaiah, Ratnaiah and David has such they are all necessary parties in this complaint. The OP.No.1 has attended to the correspondence made by the complainant while forwarding the claim form and other required documents demanded by the OP.No.2 as such the OP.No.2 is responsible for payment of compensation to the complainant. And further stated that the OP.No.1 has not committed any deficiency of service and the claim is pending with the OP.No.2 . Hence the honorable Forum may be pleased to dismissed the complaint against OP.No.1. The opposite party No.2 filed counter stating that the allegations made by the complainant are neither true nor correct. The OP.No.2 did not admitted the health condition, age, occupation earning of the deceased and further the deceased did not died to due to snake bite. The opposite party No.2 further stated the representation of the complainant dt.27.08.2004 the deceased died while taking treatment due to paralysis after the complainant created false and baseless story that the deceased died due to snake bite. The complainant suppressed the facts. Inspite deceased died to paralysis attack and not due to the snake bite. The allegations are created for the purpose of the case. As per the investigation of the OP.No.2 dt.16.12.2006 the deceased was died due to paralysis. The opposite party No.2 further stated that as per the legal heirs the deceased having three sons they are necessary parties to the claim but, in this complaint they are non joinder of proper parties. Hence the complainant not maintainable non joinder of necessary parties and the same is liable to be dismissed and the complainant fabricated the death certificate issued by the medical officer. If the deceased died due to snake bite the death certificate has to issue on proper proforma showing the IP noumber -6- and other particulars. There is no police complain, inquest and post mortom. The opposite party No.1 has given the detailed reply to the notice even after the complainant filed this false and baseless complaint. The opposite party No.2 addressed to the opposite party No.1 to furnish the documents but failed to submit the documents as required, she simply filed the certificate which is created for the purpose of the case. The medical officer has also not taken any steps for concluding that deceased died to snake bite. Hence the complaint is not entitled for any amount. Hence the complaint is dismissed against OP.No.2 with costs. Heard both sides. Both parties have filed their affidavits. Ex.A.1 to A.14 are marked on behalf of the complainant and Ex.B1 to B.10 are marked on behalf of OP.No.1 and Ex.B.11 and Ex.B.12 are marked on behalf of OP.No.2. Dr.Satish Kumar is examined as RW.1 (The opposite party No.2 filed questionare are The point that arises for consideration is whether the complainant proved the deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in settling the claim? We have gone through the contents of the complaint, counters, Affidavit filed on either side, written arguments filed herein and the documents filed on either side and examination of RW.3 are relevant material available on record. The case of the complainant is that the complainant husband late Talahari Lingaiah was having Manjeera Surakasha Saving Account vide A/c No.137 with opposite party No.1 bank and Account holder having balance of Rs.1,030 in his account. As per the terms of Manjeera Surakasha Saving account after death of the account holder the bank would pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the legal heirs on 25.05.2004 the deceased was working in his final he was accidently bitten by a snake and -7- immediately shifted to Government hospital sangareddy and he died while under going treatment. The deceased having leaving his wife i.e., complainant and 3 sons namely Nagaiah, Ratnaiah and David as his legal heirs. After death of the Late Talari Lingiah the complainant got issue notice to opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.1,00,000/-as per the terms No.4 of Manjeera Surakasha Scheme but the opposite party did not pay the said amount hence she filed this complaint. On other hand the opposite party No.1 in his counter stated that as per the terms of the policy the legal heirs of the account holder should informed opposite party No.1 within 30 days of accident and OP.No.1 arrange the claim through OP.No.2 within 90 days as per the Manjeera Surakasha Scheme. When the account holder dies to un natural death only he eneitled the benefits i.e., Rs.1,00,000/-. The opposite party No.1 denying that on 25.05.2004 while the deceased working in his filed he was accidentlly bitten by a snake where he died under going treatment is false story created by the complainant for claiming the benefits. The opposite party No.1 stated in their counter the complainant got issued legal notice dt.25.10.2005 to amount Rs.1,00,000/- and gave reply on 31.10.2005 admitting the intimation of documents through post and also extended the service in settling insurance claim. The complainant sent copy of death certificate legal heir certificate and votor identity card through her counsel with letter dt.28.12.2005. The opposite party No.1 forwarded to OP.No.2 which is sending by the complainant and the deceased having three sons they are not made parties in this complaint. The OP.No.1 attended to the correspondence made by the complainant while forwarding the claim form and other required documents demanded by the opposite party No.2. As such the OP.No.2 is responsibility for payment compensation the OP./No.1 has contended that he did his job by sending the claim form and other documents to the OP.No.2 within time and making correspondence with them. It is duty of OP.No.2 settled the claim of the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency of service on part of the OP.No.2. -8- The opposite party No.2 in his counter stated that deceased did not die due to sanke bite and deceased died while taking treatment due to paralaysis. The complainant suprrssed the fact in spite deceased died to Pralaysis attack and not due to snake bite. The allegations are created for the purpose of the case. The OP.No.2 stated that as per the investigation of OP.No.2 dt.16.12.2006 the deceased was died due to Pralaysis. The deceased having three sons they are necessary parties to this claim. But they are not made parties in this complaint. Hence the complaint not maintainable non joinder of necessary parties. The complainant fabricated the death certificate issued by the medical officer. The certificate is not proper proforma showing the IP number and other particulars and there is no police complaint, inquest and Post mortum. The medical officer has also not taken any steps for concluding the deceased died due to snake bite. As the complainant is not entitled any amount. The complaint is dismissed against OP.No.2 with costs. We have gone through the contents of the complaint, Affidavits filed on either side documents filed here in and the relevant material available on record. A perusal of the Ex.B.1 is representation made by the complainant is shows that the deceased died due to Praralysis is under going treatment. A perusal of Ex.B.12 is investigation report filed by OP.no.2 dt.28.12.2006 as per investigation report Smt.Anasuja who is the second daughter in the deceased says that the decased died due to Paralysis. At this juncture which is relevant to go through the examination of RW.1 the doctor J.D.Satish Kumar who is working as Civil Asst.Surgeon District Government hospital Sangareddy RW.1 is in his chief examination deposed he issued a Ex.A.14 certificate and as per Ex.A.14 the death is caused due to snake bite. He also deposed that in his cross examination he did not mentioned in the certificate whos request and he cannot identified that the legal heirs of deceased Talari Lingaiah and he also deposed that it is not mentioned in ex.A.14 that when the patient contact me and unless P.M.E conducted we cannot say that when the sanke bite to the deceased died due to snaked bite are poisioning. He also deposed in case if the patient is brought to us in the last stage of his breath if he dies, we conduct the P.M.E. In the incident case they conducted P.M.E and -9- he did not seen the deceased. As per the Ex.B.1 and B.12 is shows that the deceased died to due to Paralysis. As per Ex.A.14 that is issued by doctor certificate who is cross examined as RW.1. He says that unless PME conducted they cannot says that when the snake bite to the deceased died due to snake bite for poisining . As per the Ex.B.1 the complainant her self is admitted that the deceased died due to Pralaysis under going to treatment. The deceased died due to snake bite the death certificate has to issue on proper proforma showing IP number and other particular and there is no police complaint and post mortum report. As per investigation report i.e., Ex.B.12 filed by OP.no.2 is shows that the second daughter in Law of deceased says that the deceased died to Parayalsis. Ex.A.14 is a fabricated document for the purpose of this case because the doctor RW.1 who issued the certificate himself stated his cross examination that at the request of the complainant he issued Ex.A.14 certificate without seeing the patient and he does not know because of the death of complainant husband. As per Section 24(A) the complainant barred by limitation the cause of action arosed on 25.05.2004 and the complainant is filed this complaint maintainable two years. The complainant is maintainable it is two years from 25.05.2004 that if it is on before 25.05.2006 but this complaint is presented on 29.01.2007. As per the Section 24 (A) the complainant barred by limitation. The complaint not prove the case that the deceased died due to snake bite. The complainant is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the complainant is dismissed. No costs. Typed to my written draft, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 12th day of June, 2008. PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER -10- WITNESS EXAMINED For the Complainant:- For opposite parties:- RW.3/dt.08.02.2008 – Dr.J.D.Satish Kumar -Nil- DOCUMENTS MARKED For the Complainant:- For the Opposite Parties:- Ex.A1/dt.Nil Postal receipt. Ex.B1/dt.27.08.2004 - Letter From complainant to OP.No.1. Ex.A1/dt.Nil Postal acknowledgement Ex.B2/dt.29.10.2004 – Letter Addressed to OP.No.2. Ex.A3/dt.25.10.2005 – office copy of the notice Ex.B3/dt.25.10,2005 – Letter From complainant to OP.No.1. Ex.A4/dt.Nil - Postal acknowledgement Ex.B4/dt.31.10.2005 – copy of Due card. Of reply notice Ex.A5/dt.Nil - Postal receipt. Ex.B5/dt.28.12.2005 – Xerox Copy of OP.No.1 to Branch Manager, MGB, Regod. Ex.A6/dt.31.10.2005 – Reply notice. Ex.B6/dt.02.01.2006 – Original Letter of Insurance Company To the MGB, Regod Branch. Ex.A7/dt.28.12.2005 – office copy of notice. Ex.B7/dt.04.01.2006 – Letter. Ex.A8/dlt. Nil - postal acknowledgement. Ex.B8/dt.01.02.2006 – Letter Of complainant to Br.Manager MGB, Regode. Ex.A9/dt.Nil - postal receipt. Ex.B9/dt.06.02.2006 – Letter Addressed to Br.Manager, UII. Company Ltd., with by OP.no.1 with Acknowledgement (2). -11- Ex.A10/dt.nil -Reply notice dt.04.10.2005 Ex.B.10/dt.17.04.2006 – letter along with it’s cover containing from complainant postal Endorsements Dt.04.01.2006. Ex.A.11/dt.18.02.2005 – Letter from OP.No.2. Ex.B.11/dt.18.02.2005 – Reminder. Ex.A.12/dt. Nil - Election Identity card (Xerox) Ex.B.12/dt.28.12.2006 – Investigation report. Ex.A.13/dt.07.12.1998 – Pass book issued by OP.No.1. Ex.A.14/dt.25.05.2004 – Medical certificate of death (Xerox) Ex.A.15/dt.19.11.2005 – Legal heir certificate. Ex.A.16/dt.01.02.2006 – Office copy of notice. Ex.A.17/dt.Nil - postal acknowledgement Ex.A.18/dt.Nil - postal receipt. Ex.A.19/dt.06.02.2006 - Letter to OP.No.2 by OP.No.1. Ex.A.20/dt.06.02.2006 - Letter to OP.no.2 by OP.No.1. PRESIDENT. | 
