BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL

Present: Sri.P.V.Nageswara Rao,M.A.,LL.M., President(FAC)

And

Smt. C.Preethi,  M.A.LL.B., Lady Member

And

Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc.,M.Phil., Male Member

Thursday  the 10^th  day of September, 2009

C.C. 32/09

M.Narayanamma, W/o. Late NM.Mallesh, C/o Pulla Sreenu,

H.No.12/18, Konda peta, Near Janda Katta Veedhi, Dhone-518222,

Kurnool District.                                

                …Complainant

-Vs-

1.  The Branch Manager,Life Insurance Corporation of India,

     H.No 4-64-C, Tilak Nagar, Guntakal, Anantapur District.

 2. The Divisional Manager,   Life Insurance Corporation of India,

     D.No.1-55, Jeevan Prakash Building,College Road,  Kadapa-516004.                   

…Opposite Parties

                        This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.A.Ramasubba Reddy , Advocate, for the complainant , and Sri. L.Hariharanatha 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.No.32/09

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 the policy amount of Rs.50,000/- with 24% interest , Rs.10,000/- as compensation  for  mental agony  ,  cost of the compliant and any  other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.

2.     The brief facts of the complainants case is that the complainant’s husband M. Mallesh insured  his life with opposite parties  under policy bearing No. 654293727 for Rs.50,000/-   and  the  policy commenced  from 28-01-2007. The insured  died on 16-04-2007 due to  heart attack  and the same was intimated to opposite party No. 1 and claim form along with required formalities  were submitted  to the opposite parties . But the opposite parties  repudiated the claim  stating that  the insured gave wrong age as 39 years  by reducing the original age by 14 years. But the complainant submitted that as the accurate age of the insured  is not available the opposite party collected Rs.50/- as additional premium  and hence by collecting  the extra premium the life risk of the insured is covered and there is deficiency of service on part of opposite parties in repudiating the valid claim of the complainant and hence the complainant resorted to the forum for reliefs.

3.     In support of her  case the complainant relied on the following documents viz., (1) repudiation  letter dated 18-03-2008 and (2) Xerox copy of claimants statement , besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant  in reiteration of her complaint averments and the above documents are marked  as Ex.A1 and A2 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  opposite party No. 2 filed written version and opposite party No. 1 adopted the written version of opposite party No. 2.

5.     The written version of opposite parties 1& 2 denies the complaint  as not maintainable either in law or on facts  and submits that the deceased  M.Mallesh   has  taken   a  policy  for Rs.50,000/-  from opposite   party No. 1   and   nominated   his  wife i.e,  complainant

 M.Narayanamma as his nominee. The age of the deceased was mentioned as 39 years  in the proposal and basing on the said  age the above policy was issued . The complainant informed  the death of life assured on 16-04-2007 , as the claim aroused within in 2 months 18 days,  investigation was conducted which revealed that the deceased withheld correct information about his age . It also submits that the deceased  grossly understated his age by 14 years  at the time of taking the policy and submitted incorrect age in the proposal form. The age of the deceased was infact 53 years at the   time of submission of proposal as per the voters identity card bearing No. AP /26/180/4002494 dated 15-12-1995  . As the date of age is wrongly mentioned in the proposal the opposite parties is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant and hence the claim of the complainant  was repudiated by speaking order dated 18-03-2008  and hence  lastly seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.

6.     In support of their case the opposite parties relied on the following documents viz, (1) proposal form dated 31-01-2007 , (2) policy bond (New Bhima Gold ) No. 654293727 , (3) form No.3260 , 5098 and  (4) Xerox copy of voters identity  of policy holder, besides to the  sworn affidavit of opposite party in reiteration of his written version averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.B1 to B4 for its appreciation in this case 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 complaint  of  the  complainant that her husband Late M. Mallesh has taken a policy vide Ex.B2. The Ex.B2 is the policy bond  bearing No.   654293727   for  Rs.50,000/-   issued   to  deceased    M. Mallesh and the policy commenced from 28-01-2007 and the deceased nominated the complainant as his nominee. The said policy holder M. Mallesh died on 16-04-2007 due to heart attack and the same was intimated to opposite parties and the complainant submitted claim form vide Ex.A2 . Thereafter the opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant vide Ex.A1. The said Ex.A1 is the repudiation letter dated 18-03-2008 of opposite party No. 2 to the complainant , it repudiates the claim on the ground that the policy holder under stated his age by 14 years and gave false statement of his age in the proposal form . To substantiate the above contentions  the opposite parties  relied on the voters list ( Ex. B4)  enumerated on 01-01-1995 of the Tuggali Village of Pathikionda constituency , which reveals that the age of the policy holder was 41 years on 01-1-1995. The particulars given in the voters identity card has no  nexus to prove the age of the voter ,the  effect of the voters list is for registration of a person to vote , by which  the said person has a right to vote in an election , but to prove the age of a person  voters identity  card cannot be an evidence to be relied upon . The opposite parties having accepted the insurance coverage to the policyholder under the said policy at the relevant time accepting the age of the policy holder mentioned in the proposal vide Ex.B1 and there by issued a policy bond vide Ex.B2 cannot now take a stand that the policy holder gave untrue statements in the proposal form . Hence the plea taken by the opposite parties remained as plea for plea sake without any justification.

9.     When the death of policy holder is not in violation of terms and conditions of the policy and when there is no cogent and substantive material to believe that the policy holder gave untrue statement as to his age in the proposal form , the opposite parties has no other go except  to honour the  terms and conditions of the policy in making its due payment  to the nominee /complainant.

10.    From the circumstances discussed above , and to conclude from the above , there is absolutely no record placed by the opposite parties to disbelieve the age mentioned in the  proposal form as incorrect . Hence, the act of repudiating the claim of the complainant by the opposite parties as is remaining  without any justifiable  excuse  and the said conduct of opposite parties  is certainly amounting  to failure on their  part in repudiating the  claim and there by amounting to deficiency of service and there by the complainant  is certainly  remaining entitled  to the assured  under the policy issued to her husband.

11.    In the result , the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay to the complainant  the assured amount of rs.50,000/- along with entitled  benefits under the policy bearing No. 654293727 and also pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as costs of the case within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 10^th day of September, 2009.

        Sd/-                          Sd/-                          Sd/-

LADY MEMBER              PRESIDENT FAC)     MALE MEMBER

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant :  Nil           For the opposite parties :Nil

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

List  of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: 

             Sd/-                              Sd/-                                        Sd/-

LADY MEMBER               PRESIDENT (FAC)               MALE MEMBER           

// 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          :