The Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Raichur V/S Basavaraj S/. Siddamalappa Hosagouda, Chittapur, - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/10/31

Basavaraj S/. Siddamalappa Hosagouda, Chittapur, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Raichur - Opp.Party(s)

V.S. Zalki

31 Aug 2010

ORDER

Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
Dist. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sath Kacheri, Raichur.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/31

Basavaraj S/. Siddamalappa Hosagouda, Chittapur,						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Divisional Manager, LIC of India, Raichur The Branch Manager, LIC of India (CAB) Gulbarga The Zonal Manager, South Central Zonal Office, Hyderabad						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi, President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant Basavaraj against LIC of India U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for directing the opposites to pay death claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- ( the sum assured is of Rs. 50,000/- and accidental benefit claim of Rs. 50,000/-) with interest and cost. 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, one Sutina Hosagouda is his daughter. In the year 2005, he purchased LIC policy including accidental benefit in the name of her daughter Sunita Hosagouda from opposites, bearing Policy No. 663383385. At the time of filing proposal form. LIC of India got medically examined her daughter from their penal Dr. by name Smt. Rohini Shah for proposal form and it was accepted and LIC policy was issued. Thereafter, unfortunately on 23-07-05 his daughter Sunita died due to Cordiac Arrest. After her death, he filed claim petition along with other necessary records before opposites LIC of India to make payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- including sum assured and accidental benefit. But opposite No-1 Insurance Company repudiated his claim on 29-03-06, thereafter he made enquiry with opposite No-3 and thereafter opposite No-2, but none of them have settled his benefit, accordingly he issued legal notice and filed this complaint for the reliefs as prayed in it. 3. Opposite No-1 & 3 appeared and filed their written version. Opposite No-2 is placed Ex-parte. The brief facts of the written version filed by Opposite Nos- 1 & 2 are that, at the time of medical examination of Sunita and prior to it, she was suffering from T.B. she was taken treatment, but the said fact was not revealed by her or by her father in the proposal form , thereafter LIC of India made enquiry and investigated that, the said Sunita was suffering from T.B. disease, it is against to the terms and conditions of the policy and against to Section 45 of LIC Act. Thereafter it properly repudiated the claim of complainant. Further it is contended that, the complainant is not a nominee under the said policy, he is not entitled to claim the amount under the said policy without production of succession certificate and thereby it prayed for to reject the complaint among other grounds. 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, during the lifetime of his daughter Sunita, he obtained LIC policy including accidental benefit and thereafter his daughter died on 23-07-05 due to cordiac arrest. He filed claim petition before the LIC of India for to settle his claim under the said policy, but opposite LIC of India repudiated his claim through its letter dt. 29-03-06 on untenable grounds, thereafter he also requested them orally and in writing but all of them shows their negligence in settling his claim and thereby all the opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.? 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In Negative. (2) In Negative. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. Documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-14 are marked. Answers filed by PW-1 to the interrogatories field by Opposite Nos. 1 & 3. Written argument filed. On the other hand Documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-5 are marked from the side of opposites. 7. Some of the undisputed facts between the parties are namely:- 1. It is undisputed fact that, Sunita Hosagouda obtained LIC with accidental benefit vide policy bearing No. 663383385 at her life time from opposite LIC of India Ltd., for assured sum of Rs. 50,000/- + accidental benefit of Rs. 50,000/-. 2. It is further undisputed fact that, the said Sunita died on 23-07-05. 3. The complainant Basavaraj is the father of deceased Sunita but he is not a nominee under the said policy is also not in dispute. 4. It is undisputed fact that, opposite LIC of India repudiated the claim of complainant Basavaraj vide its letter dt. 29-03-06 (Ex.P-7). 8. In the light of these undisputed facts, now let us examine and appreciate the case of parties. 9. In view of the pleadings of the parties and their respective documents, first we have to see as to whether this complaint was filed by complainant in time or it is barred by limitation U/sec. 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act. No doubt opposite Insurance Company not taken this contention of limitation in their written version. However this Forum is not barred to consider as to whether this complaint is barred by limitation or whether it is in time as required U/sec. 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act. Even though the point on limitation was not taken in written version by the LIC of India. 10. In decided case, State Bank of India V/s. B.S. Agricultural Industry reported in (2009) V SCC 121 and Rukminiyamma & Others V/s. Kirloskar Invest Finance Ltd., reported in (2010) I CPR 201 (NC), the Honble Supreme Court as well as the Honble National Commission held that, Section 24(A) of C.P. Act is a short of legislative command, the Consumer Forum shall examine on its own whether complaint has been filed within a period of limitation as prescribed Section 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act. It is the duty of Consumer Forum to take note of section 24(A) of the Act and to give the effect of it. 11. Further the Honble Supreme Court in decided case of Ganmani Anasuya V/s. Paravatni Amarinder Chowdary reported in, AIR (2007) SC 2380 at para-27, it held as it is proper to the court to determine the question as to whether the suit is barred by limitation or not irrespective of the fact that has to whether such plea has been raised by the parties, such jurisdiction of facts need not be pleaded by the parties. 12. Keeping in view of the law laid down by their lordships in the decided cases. Now it is for us to determine as to whether this complaint is in time or whether it is barred by limitation U/sec. 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act. 13. Admittedly in the instant case insured Sunita died on 23-07-05, thereafter complainant approached and filed his claim petition before opposite No-1 and it was repudiated by the LIC of India vide Ex.P-7 dt. 29-03-06, thereafter in any correspondences made by the Insurance Company it directly or indirectly not admitted its liability in any one of its letters. Therefore the cause of action for the complainant to file this complaint was on 29-03-06, this complaint was filed by the complainant on 29-04-10 that means this complaint was filed by the complainant beyond the mandatory limitation period of two years as stipulated U/sec. 24(A)(1) of the C.P. Act. 14. The contention of the complainant as pleaded in his complaint is that, after repudiating the claim of him, by LIC of India vide its letter Ex.P-7, he made several correspondences with opposite No-2 & 3 and its head office and ultimately he sent last letter dt. 02-10-08 vide Ex.P-13(1). Therefore this complaint was filed within two years from the date 02-10-08, so this complaint is in time this is not acceptable. Whatever the correspondences took place in between the complainant and opposites after 29-03-06 vide repudiation letter Ex.P-7, the said correspondence will not extend or enlarge the period of limitation of two years from that date of cause of action vide Ex.P-7 for the complainant to file this complaint. 15. Similar matter was dealt by the Honble National Commission in the decided case P. Sheshayya and another V/s. Standard Chartered Bank and another reported in (II) 2009 CPJ 358 (NC) and held that, mere filing repeated representations do not extend period of limitation. 16. Keeping in view of the said principles of the rulings, we are of the view that, any amount of correspondences or representations made by the complainant Ex.P-7 that will not extend period of limitation of two years. This complainant not filed any application U/sec. 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act for to condone the delay caused in filing this complaint, as such this complaint is clearly barred by limitation. 17. As regards to the another point submitted before us by the opposites is that, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the subject matter as proposal form and LIC policy issued by the Raichur Branch. But the complainant is residing in Gulbarga District and her daughter died in Gulbarga District. 18. The learned advocate for complainant submitted that, this Forum has got jurisdiction to try the subject matter as Insurance policy Ex.R-5 was issued by Branch Office at Raichur. 19. In pursuance of the submissions made on both sides, we have perused the relevant documents, the Insurance Policy Ex.R-5 was issued by Branch Office Raichur. As per section 11(2)(B) of the C.P. Act. This Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the subject matter, even though the parties might have residing in Gulbarga District, hence this contention of learned advocate for opposites in this regard is rejected. 20. Now let us examine other contention of the opposites LIC of India that, complainant is not a nominee under the Insurance Policy Ex.R-5 he has not produced succession certificate in that regard. Hence this complaint is not maintainable. 21. On the other hand the learned advocate for complainant submitted that, complainant is the natural father and guardian of minor Sunita. Hence he is the proper person to file this complaint. 22. In pursuance of the submissions made on both sides in this regard we have perused the facts pleaded in this complaint. 23. The present complainant is one Basavaraj is the father of insured Sunita. Admittedly there is no nominee under the Insurance Policy Ex.R-5 of Sunita. The complainant not pleaded in this complaint that, he was guardian of minor deceased daughter Sunita at her life time. He has not disclosed any of the fact that, regarding the natural mother who is the real custodian of minor Sunita. Under the said circumstances, this complaint filed by father of deceased minor without impleading natural mother and real custodian of minor daughter Sunita is not maintainable, accordingly in the present form complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Hence submissions made by the learned advocate for complainant in this regard is not accepted. 24. Another contention of the opposites LIC of India is that, at the time of deceased Sunita and prior to her death she was suffering from T.B. it was not disclosed in the proposal form. Hence it is material suppression of fact and obtained Insurance Policy with an intention to get illegal mandatory gain from LIC of India. In support of this contention the learned advocate for opposite No-3 referred letter Ex.R-3 which was issued by Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Gundagurthi of Gulbarga District, and he relied on the unreported ruling of the Honble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 649/2005 and another ruling published in the Newspaper Times of India 22 November 2007. 25. On the other hand the learned advocate for complainant relied on some of the following rulings to negativate the above contention of the opposites and submitted that, there was no such suppression of material of facts vide giving proposal form because of the fact that, deceased Sunita was examined medically by one Dr. Rohini Shah of LIC of India. 1. I (2010) CPJ 106 (NC) LIC of India & Others V/s. Pariapally Sujatha. 2. IV (2009) CPJ 224 (NC) LIC of India & Others V/s. Ram Murti 3. I (2009) CPJ 161 (NC) Vanita Ben Retilal Fulbari V/s. LIC of India. 4. (2010) (T) 963 (CP) (SCDRC) Jaipur LIC of India and another V/s. Smt. Ram Sakhi. 26. We have gone through the principles held by their lordships of the above said rulings and in the light of those principles we have discussed the case of complainant. No doubt it is the burden of opposites to prove the fact that, there was a material suppression on the part of complainant in filing proposal form. It appears to us from the above document that, Ex.R-1 dt. 29-03-06 was in the custody of LIC of India Gulbarga till the date of production of it in this case. Admittedly the said Sunita died 23-07-05 that means to say that, Ex.R-5 was in the custody of opposites prior to her death Ex.P-3 and certificate issued by Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Gundagurthi dt. 20-12-05 which was issued just one day prior to the date of death of Sunita in which there was no reference of suffering of Sunita by T.B. Diseases but it was mentioned in Ex.P-3 by the Medical Officer, Gundagurthi as there was a severe pain in the abdomen and severe pain in the chest, there was no reference at Ex.R-3 in Ex.P-3 even though both certificates were issued by one hospital. In the light of the circumstances discussed above, the contention of suffering by T.B. by the deceased Sunita at the time of filing proposal form and it was intentionally suppressed is not acceptable theory and repudiating the claim of complainant on that ground by LIC is not correct. However this complaint is barred by limitation and no application is filed by the complainant U/sec. 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act for to condone the delay and complaint filed by the father alone of deceased Sunita, Hence we are of the view that, the present complaint is not maintainable and complainant is not entitled to get any kind of relief as prayed in this complaint. Accordingly we answered Point No-1 in Negative. 27. In view of our finding on Point No- 1, the complainant is not entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in his complaint. POINT NO.3:- 28. In view of our findings on Point No- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER This complaint filed by the complainant against opposite Nos. 1 to 3 is dismissed. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 31-08-10) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi, President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant Basavaraj against LIC of India U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for directing the opposites to pay death claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- ( the sum assured is of Rs. 50,000/- and accidental benefit claim of Rs. 50,000/-) with interest and cost. 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, one Sutina Hosagouda is his daughter. In the year 2005, he purchased LIC policy including accidental benefit in the name of her daughter Sunita Hosagouda from opposites, bearing Policy No. 663383385. At the time of filing proposal form. LIC of India got medically examined her daughter from their penal Dr. by name Smt. Rohini Shah for proposal form and it was accepted and LIC policy was issued. Thereafter, unfortunately on 23-07-05 his daughter Sunita died due to Cordiac Arrest. After her death, he filed claim petition along with other necessary records before opposites LIC of India to make payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- including sum assured and accidental benefit. But opposite No-1 Insurance Company repudiated his claim on 29-03-06, thereafter he made enquiry with opposite No-3 and thereafter opposite No-2, but none of them have settled his benefit, accordingly he issued legal notice and filed this complaint for the reliefs as prayed in it. 3. Opposite No-1 & 3 appeared and filed their written version. Opposite No-2 is placed Ex-parte. The brief facts of the written version filed by Opposite Nos- 1 & 2 are that, at the time of medical examination of Sunita and prior to it, she was suffering from T.B. she was taken treatment, but the said fact was not revealed by her or by her father in the proposal form , thereafter LIC of India made enquiry and investigated that, the said Sunita was suffering from T.B. disease, it is against to the terms and conditions of the policy and against to Section 45 of LIC Act. Thereafter it properly repudiated the claim of complainant. Further it is contended that, the complainant is not a nominee under the said policy, he is not entitled to claim the amount under the said policy without production of succession certificate and thereby it prayed for to reject the complaint among other grounds. 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, during the lifetime of his daughter Sunita, he obtained LIC policy including accidental benefit and thereafter his daughter died on 23-07-05 due to cordiac arrest. He filed claim petition before the LIC of India for to settle his claim under the said policy, but opposite LIC of India repudiated his claim through its letter dt. 29-03-06 on untenable grounds, thereafter he also requested them orally and in writing but all of them shows their negligence in settling his claim and thereby all the opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.? 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In Negative. (2) In Negative. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. Documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-14 are marked. Answers filed by PW-1 to the interrogatories field by Opposite Nos. 1 & 3. Written argument filed. On the other hand Documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-5 are marked from the side of opposites. 7. Some of the undisputed facts between the parties are namely:- 1. It is undisputed fact that, Sunita Hosagouda obtained LIC with accidental benefit vide policy bearing No. 663383385 at her life time from opposite LIC of India Ltd., for assured sum of Rs. 50,000/- + accidental benefit of Rs. 50,000/-. 2. It is further undisputed fact that, the said Sunita died on 23-07-05. 3. The complainant Basavaraj is the father of deceased Sunita but he is not a nominee under the said policy is also not in dispute. 4. It is undisputed fact that, opposite LIC of India repudiated the claim of complainant Basavaraj vide its letter dt. 29-03-06 (Ex.P-7). 8. In the light of these undisputed facts, now let us examine and appreciate the case of parties. 9. In view of the pleadings of the parties and their respective documents, first we have to see as to whether this complaint was filed by complainant in time or it is barred by limitation U/sec. 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act. No doubt opposite Insurance Company not taken this contention of limitation in their written version. However this Forum is not barred to consider as to whether this complaint is barred by limitation or whether it is in time as required U/sec. 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act. Even though the point on limitation was not taken in written version by the LIC of India. 10. In decided case, State Bank of India V/s. B.S. Agricultural Industry reported in (2009) V SCC 121 and Rukminiyamma & Others V/s. Kirloskar Invest Finance Ltd., reported in (2010) I CPR 201 (NC), the Honble Supreme Court as well as the Honble National Commission held that, Section 24(A) of C.P. Act is a short of legislative command, the Consumer Forum shall examine on its own whether complaint has been filed within a period of limitation as prescribed Section 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act. It is the duty of Consumer Forum to take note of section 24(A) of the Act and to give the effect of it. 11. Further the Honble Supreme Court in decided case of Ganmani Anasuya V/s. Paravatni Amarinder Chowdary reported in, AIR (2007) SC 2380 at para-27, it held as it is proper to the court to determine the question as to whether the suit is barred by limitation or not irrespective of the fact that has to whether such plea has been raised by the parties, such jurisdiction of facts need not be pleaded by the parties. 12. Keeping in view of the law laid down by their lordships in the decided cases. Now it is for us to determine as to whether this complaint is in time or whether it is barred by limitation U/sec. 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act. 13. Admittedly in the instant case insured Sunita died on 23-07-05, thereafter complainant approached and filed his claim petition before opposite No-1 and it was repudiated by the LIC of India vide Ex.P-7 dt. 29-03-06, thereafter in any correspondences made by the Insurance Company it directly or indirectly not admitted its liability in any one of its letters. Therefore the cause of action for the complainant to file this complaint was on 29-03-06, this complaint was filed by the complainant on 29-04-10 that means this complaint was filed by the complainant beyond the mandatory limitation period of two years as stipulated U/sec. 24(A)(1) of the C.P. Act. 14. The contention of the complainant as pleaded in his complaint is that, after repudiating the claim of him, by LIC of India vide its letter Ex.P-7, he made several correspondences with opposite No-2 & 3 and its head office and ultimately he sent last letter dt. 02-10-08 vide Ex.P-13(1). Therefore this complaint was filed within two years from the date 02-10-08, so this complaint is in time this is not acceptable. Whatever the correspondences took place in between the complainant and opposites after 29-03-06 vide repudiation letter Ex.P-7, the said correspondence will not extend or enlarge the period of limitation of two years from that date of cause of action vide Ex.P-7 for the complainant to file this complaint. 15. Similar matter was dealt by the Honble National Commission in the decided case P. Sheshayya and another V/s. Standard Chartered Bank and another reported in (II) 2009 CPJ 358 (NC) and held that, mere filing repeated representations do not extend period of limitation. 16. Keeping in view of the said principles of the rulings, we are of the view that, any amount of correspondences or representations made by the complainant Ex.P-7 that will not extend period of limitation of two years. This complainant not filed any application U/sec. 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act for to condone the delay caused in filing this complaint, as such this complaint is clearly barred by limitation. 17. As regards to the another point submitted before us by the opposites is that, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the subject matter as proposal form and LIC policy issued by the Raichur Branch. But the complainant is residing in Gulbarga District and her daughter died in Gulbarga District. 18. The learned advocate for complainant submitted that, this Forum has got jurisdiction to try the subject matter as Insurance policy Ex.R-5 was issued by Branch Office at Raichur. 19. In pursuance of the submissions made on both sides, we have perused the relevant documents, the Insurance Policy Ex.R-5 was issued by Branch Office Raichur. As per section 11(2)(B) of the C.P. Act. This Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the subject matter, even though the parties might have residing in Gulbarga District, hence this contention of learned advocate for opposites in this regard is rejected. 20. Now let us examine other contention of the opposites LIC of India that, complainant is not a nominee under the Insurance Policy Ex.R-5 he has not produced succession certificate in that regard. Hence this complaint is not maintainable. 21. On the other hand the learned advocate for complainant submitted that, complainant is the natural father and guardian of minor Sunita. Hence he is the proper person to file this complaint. 22. In pursuance of the submissions made on both sides in this regard we have perused the facts pleaded in this complaint. 23. The present complainant is one Basavaraj is the father of insured Sunita. Admittedly there is no nominee under the Insurance Policy Ex.R-5 of Sunita. The complainant not pleaded in this complaint that, he was guardian of minor deceased daughter Sunita at her life time. He has not disclosed any of the fact that, regarding the natural mother who is the real custodian of minor Sunita. Under the said circumstances, this complaint filed by father of deceased minor without impleading natural mother and real custodian of minor daughter Sunita is not maintainable, accordingly in the present form complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Hence submissions made by the learned advocate for complainant in this regard is not accepted. 24. Another contention of the opposites LIC of India is that, at the time of deceased Sunita and prior to her death she was suffering from T.B. it was not disclosed in the proposal form. Hence it is material suppression of fact and obtained Insurance Policy with an intention to get illegal mandatory gain from LIC of India. In support of this contention the learned advocate for opposite No-3 referred letter Ex.R-3 which was issued by Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Gundagurthi of Gulbarga District, and he relied on the unreported ruling of the Honble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 649/2005 and another ruling published in the Newspaper Times of India 22 November 2007. 25. On the other hand the learned advocate for complainant relied on some of the following rulings to negativate the above contention of the opposites and submitted that, there was no such suppression of material of facts vide giving proposal form because of the fact that, deceased Sunita was examined medically by one Dr. Rohini Shah of LIC of India. 1. I (2010) CPJ 106 (NC) LIC of India & Others V/s. Pariapally Sujatha. 2. IV (2009) CPJ 224 (NC) LIC of India & Others V/s. Ram Murti 3. I (2009) CPJ 161 (NC) Vanita Ben Retilal Fulbari V/s. LIC of India. 4. (2010) (T) 963 (CP) (SCDRC) Jaipur LIC of India and another V/s. Smt. Ram Sakhi. 26. We have gone through the principles held by their lordships of the above said rulings and in the light of those principles we have discussed the case of complainant. No doubt it is the burden of opposites to prove the fact that, there was a material suppression on the part of complainant in filing proposal form. It appears to us from the above document that, Ex.R-1 dt. 29-03-06 was in the custody of LIC of India Gulbarga till the date of production of it in this case. Admittedly the said Sunita died 23-07-05 that means to say that, Ex.R-5 was in the custody of opposites prior to her death Ex.P-3 and certificate issued by Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Gundagurthi dt. 20-12-05 which was issued just one day prior to the date of death of Sunita in which there was no reference of suffering of Sunita by T.B. Diseases but it was mentioned in Ex.P-3 by the Medical Officer, Gundagurthi as there was a severe pain in the abdomen and severe pain in the chest, there was no reference at Ex.R-3 in Ex.P-3 even though both certificates were issued by one hospital. In the light of the circumstances discussed above, the contention of suffering by T.B. by the deceased Sunita at the time of filing proposal form and it was intentionally suppressed is not acceptable theory and repudiating the claim of complainant on that ground by LIC is not correct. However this complaint is barred by limitation and no application is filed by the complainant U/sec. 24(A)(2) of C.P. Act for to condone the delay and complaint filed by the father alone of deceased Sunita, Hence we are of the view that, the present complaint is not maintainable and complainant is not entitled to get any kind of relief as prayed in this complaint. Accordingly we answered Point No-1 in Negative. 27. In view of our finding on Point No- 1, the complainant is not entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in his complaint. POINT NO.3:- 28. In view of our findings on Point No- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER This complaint filed by the complainant against opposite Nos. 1 to 3 is dismissed. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 31-08-10) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.