Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/1/2018

T.Naga Nanda Krishna (Minor aged 8 years), S/o Late T.Nagaraju, Rep. by his mother B.Radhika - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India - Opp.Party(s)

G.Damodaram Naidu

11 Jan 2019

ORDER

Filing Date: 16.09.2017

Order Date:11.01.2019

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.T.Anand, President (FAC)

               Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

FRIDAY THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND NINTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.01/2018

 

 

Between

 

 

Minor T.Naga Nanda Krishna,

S/o. late. T.Nagaraju,

Hindu, rep. by his mother-natural-guardian B.Radhika @ T.Radhika,

W/o. late. Sri.T.Nagaraju,

Hindu, aged about 33 years,

D.No.16-4, Old pet,

Chandragiri,

Chandragiri Mandal,

Chittoor District,

Andhra Pradesh.                                                                                           … Complainant.

 

And

 

 

1.         The Divisional Manager,

            Life Insurance Corporation of India,

            Divisional Office,

            “Jeevan Prakash”,

            Dargamitta,

            Nellore – 524 003,

            Andhra Pradesh.

 

2.         The Branch Manager,

            Life Insurance Corporation of India,

            Branch Office at Tirupati,

            Narasimhatheertham Road,

            Tirupati,

            Chittoor District,

            Andhra Pradesh.                                                                        …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 06.12.18 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.G.Damodaram Naidu, counsel for complainant, and Sri.A.Sudarsana Babu, counsel for opposite parties, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. T.ANAND, PRESIDENT (FAC)

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Sections –12 and 14 of C.P.Act 1986, with the following allegations –

2.  One T.Nagaraju, was having two life insurance policies namely (1) policy No.841765205, dt:28.01.2005, under ‘Jeevan Mitra’ for assured sum of Rs.55,000/-, in which nominee is his father T.Sainatha Pillai, and (2) policy No.844821332 dt:22.05.2012, under ‘Jeevan Ankur’ for assured sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, in which his son T.Naga Nanda Krishna is shown as nominee. The said T.Nagaraju, was working as Accountant / Clerk in Spark Advertising and Marketing Agency, Andhra Jyothi Press, Renigunta Road, Tirupati. He died on 11.03.2015 during sleep. Snoring sound suddenly changed in the sleep and he was taken to doctor, who declared that the said Nagaraju brought dead. The deceased Nagaraju left behind his wife and son as legal heirs to succeed his estate. For the second policy under Jeevan Ankur, his son being nominee is entitled to receive Rs.3,00,000/- from opposite parties 1 and 2. As he is minor, his mother represented him as natural guardian and submitted claim forms. The death of the deceased was intimated to opposite parties immediately and the officials also attended the cremation of deceased Nagaraju. The opposite party has obtained original Jeevan Ankur policy bond from the complainant and took her signatures in claim forms. The opposite party No.2 sent registered postal letter dt:26.03.2016 stating that the claim of the nominee is repudiated by stating that the policy was lapsed on 22.05.2014 and the same was revived on 18.12.2014 for full sum assured on the strength of personal statement dt:18.12.2014 regarding health condition of the deceased. But the fact of deceased undergoing surgery for PTCA + S to LCX on 09.09.2013 in SVIMS hospital, Tirupati, and about his discharge on 13.09.2013 was suppressed at the time of revival of the policy. Since the deceased deliberately concealed material information and made miss-statement regarding health condition, the claim is repudiated. The complainant made representation for reconsideration of her claim to Zonal Office, Hyderabad, stating that her husband never underwent surgery. The Dr.D.Rajasekhar, who treated the deceased, is not a surgeon and only a physician in SVIMS hospital, Tirupati, and he conducted only investigative procedure regarding health condition of the deceased. The doctor observed vessel narrowing and stent kept in the procedure and thereafter the deceased was absolutely normal. As per SVIMS discharge summary note, it has been clearly mentioned as “cured”. Opposite party No.2 and Zonal Manager, LIC of India, Hyderabad, acknowledged the notice issued by the complainant on 05.05.2016 and 23.05.2016 respectively and reply notices were issued by opposite party No.2 on 06.05.2016 and 12.09.2016 by repudiating her claim. The contention of opposite parties that the deceased Nagaraju underwent surgery is false. There is no question of making mis-statement by concealing material information with regard to health condition of the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased had paid money to the agent in time, but the agent paid the money for some other policy and did not informed the same to the deceased. Thereafter the policy was revived on 18.12.2014 after receiving full premium amount. There is no default in payment of premium and mistake is committed by the agent of LIC in not paying the premium in time. As per the advice of opposite party No.2, complainant issued legal notice dt:06.10.2016 to the Secretary, O/o. Insurance Ombudsman, Hyderabad, to consider the claim of the nominee of the deceased. The same was acknowledged by the concerned authorities on 10.10.2016, 07.10.2016 and 10.10.2016 respectively. But the Secretary, O/o. Insurance Ombudsman, declined to consider her claim by way of reply dt:19.10.2016 and upheld the repudiation of claim by the opposite parties 1 and 2. The complainant was made to suffer physically and mentally due to repudiation of claim by the concerned authorities. It is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in not settling the claim under Jeevan Ankur LIC policy. The complainant was made to run from pillar to post but without any result. The complainant claimed Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. A legal notice dt:06.10.2016 was  issued to opposite parties to settle the claim under Jeevan Ankur policy. It is therefore prayed to issue direction to opposite parties to pay assured amount of Rs.3,00,000/- being the claim amount under Jeevan Ankur policy to the nominee, to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- for deficiency in service, to pay Rs.10,000/- towards causing physical and mental agony, and further to pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

3.  Opposite party No.2 filed written version, which was adopted by opposite party No.1. At the outset complaint averments are denied except obtaining insurance policies by the deceased under Jeevan Mithra and Jeevan Ankur respectively vide policy Nos.841765205 dt:28.01.2005 and 844821332 dt:22.05.2012. Son of the deceased Nagaraju by name T.Naga Nanda Krishna, is the nominee for the Jeevan Ankur policy. The complainant called upon to prove that the deceased was working as Accountant / Clerk in Spark Advertising and Marketing Agency, Andhra Jyothi Press, Renigunta Road, Tirupati, and that he died during sleep on 11.03.2015 and that complainant is the legal heir of the deceased to succeed his estate. The complainant is called upon to prove that the policy was in force as on the date of death of the deceased by paying premium regularly in terms of policy conditions. The complainant is called upon to prove that after the death of T.Nagaraju, she has intimated about the death of her husband to LIC authority at Tirupati and then the opposite party No.2  Development Officer (D.O), and the LIC agent attended the cremation of her husband as those facts are not within the knowledge of this opposite party. The further averments that she submitted claim form and opposite party No.2 sent a registered post letter dt:26.03.2016 by repudiating the claim stating that the policy was lapsed on 22.05.2014 and the same was revived on 18.12.2014 on the strength of the personal statement dt:18.12.2014 made by T.Nagaraju regarding health condition, that the said Nagaraju, the policy holder of Jeevan Ankur underwent surgery for PTCA-S  to LCX on 09.09.2013 and that he was discharged on 13.09.2013 as per discharge summary of SVIMS, Tirupati under IP No.752348 and that he did not disclose the above said facts in his personal statement regarding his health condition at the time of revival and that he deliberately made misstatement and concealed material information regarding his health at the time of policy and even at the time of revival of Jeevan Ankur policy  and that the revival of the said policy has become null and void and nothing is payable under the policy and that being aggrieved of that, the complainant sent her representation within three months for consideration to their Zonal Office, Hyderabad, and that the complainant has sent a requisition to the Zonal Manager, LIC of India, South Central Zonal Office, Saifabad, Hyderabad, and a reply notice dt:03.05.2016 to the opposite party No.2 stating that her husband T.Nagaraju never underwent surgery, that Dr. D.Rajasekhar, M.D., D.M., who had given treatment to the said T.Nagaraju was a physician but not a surgeon, working for the last 25 years as a cardiologist and he was not doing any cardiac surgery, that  he conducted only investigation procedure are not true and correct. The complainant further called upon to prove that at the time of angiogram, the deceased was able to walk, no anesthesia was administered and that the deceased was fully conscious and witnesses the entire process of ballooning and the widening of narrow vessels and that the doctor observed the same and that the deceased was allowed to walk on the same day and that he was riding motorbike 40 k.m. per day comfortably after the procedure was done. It is admitted that opposite party No.2 and Zonal Manager, Hyderabad, acknowledged the notices issued by complainant on 05.05.2016 and 23.05.2016 respectively and that reply notices were also issued to the complainant by them on 06.05.2016 and 12.09.2016 respectively by repudiating her claim, and it is denied that opposite parties 1 and 2 have come to wrong conclusion that the deceased underwent surgery and that deceased deliberately made misstatement by concealing material information with regard to his health condition and medical evidence on record. It is also denied that the deceased had paid money to LIC agent in time in the presence of his wife but the agent paid money for some other policy by mistake and that the agent has not informed the same to individual about it and later the lapsed policy was revived on payment of premium amount by the deceased. It is denied that the complainant suffered physically and mentally, as the claim was repudiated without considering her representation by LIC authorities. It is denied that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2. It is admitted that complainant sent legal notice dt:06.10.2016 to opposite parties, but it is denied that opposite parties gave evasive replies while repudiating her claim. The policy No.841765205 dt:28.01.2005 under Jeevan Mithra obtained by the deceased for assured sum of Rs.55,000/- in which his father T.Sainadha Pillai was nominee, was in force as on the date of death of deceased Nagaraju, and the claim made by his father was settled for Rs.1,94,145/- and amount was paid through cheque dt:09.05.2015 to the nominee. The second policy Jeevan Ankur, in which the complainant is the nominee of deceased Nagaraju, was lapsed on 22.05.2014 and no premium was paid even after the grace period and thereafter the policy was revived on 18.12.2014 basing on self declaration of life assured regarding his health condition. The said Nagaraju died on 11.03.2015 within three months from the date of revival of the policy. As per the norms, such a claim will be treated as early claim and as such investigation is mandatory. The opposite parties during investigation came to know that the deceased had taken treatment in SVIMS vide IP No.758348 from 09.09.2013 to 13.09.2013. While reviving the policy on 18.12.2014, the deceased never disclosed material facts and he answered ‘No’ to relevant questions. Thus he suppressed material facts at the time of reviving the policy by making false statement regarding health condition, and as such opposite parties rightly repudiated the claim of the deceased.

4.  Complainant filed chief affidavit as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A18. On behalf of opposite parties R.W.1 filed chief evidence affidavit and Exs.B1 to B5 are marked.

5.  The points for consideration are (i). Whether the deceased Nagaraju suppressed material facts regarding health condition at the time of revival of the policy? (ii). Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in repudiating the claim of the complainant? If so, to what extent the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought?  

6.  Points (i) and (ii):- Ex.A1 is photocopy of Jeevan Ankur policy sent by opposite parties in response to RTI application submitted by the deceased wife dt:21.07.2017. It is not in dispute that complainant who is minor son of deceased is the nominee under the said policy. Ex.A2 is renewal premium receipt for Rs.14,272/- dt:07.12.2014 issued by opposite parties to the deceased. It is also not in dispute that the original policy was lapsed for non-payment of premium and later the same was revived on payment of premium. Ex.A2 is the receipt for the payment of premium by the deceased. Ex.A3 is medical record pertaining to the treatment of deceased in SVIMS hospital. This record was supplied to the complainant when she sought information under RTI Act with regard to clarification about the treatment to her deceased husband. As per the said report, the deceased was admitted on 09.09.2013 and was discharged on 13.09.2013. The medical record shows that Dr.D.Rajasekhar, is not a cardiothoracic surgeon and he is a cardiologist, and that PTCA is not an open heart surgery and it is a percutaneous interventional procedure, and that the deceased underwent coronary angiogram + percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, and coronary angiogram is diagnostic test and PTCA is a therapeutic procedure with class-1 indication in ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction. Dr.D.Rajasekhar, is Senior Professor. He is Head, Department of Cardiology, SVIMS, has provided this information on the application filed by the deceased wife under RTI Act. It is therefore clear from Ex.A3 that the deceased has not undergone surgery in SVIMS. He has undergone diagnostic test. Therefore, the contention of opposite parties that the deceased had undergone surgery and that the same was suppressed at the time of revival of the insurance policy cannot be accepted. Ex.A4 is death certificate of deceased and the same cannot be disputed. Ex.A5 is repudiation letter issued by opposite parties. The reason for repudiation is that the deceased had suppressed material facts regarding his health condition at the time of revival of the policy. In Ex.A5 answers given by the deceased to the questions are extracted as below -                                            

Question		Answer
2.	Since the date of your proposal for the above mentioned policy:
a.	Have you ever suffered from any illness / disease requiring treatment for a week or more	No
b.	Did you ever have any operation, accident or injury?	No
c.	Did you ever undergo ECG, X-ray, Screening blood, urine or stool examination?	No
4.	Are you at present in sound health?	Yes.

 

The deceased has rightly answered ‘No’ to 2(a) question, as the deceased was in SVIMS hospital for 5 days i.e. from 09.09.2015 to 13.09.2015 as per Ex.A3. For 2(b) question Did you ever have any operation, accident or injury,  he answered ‘No’ which is also correct in our view, since he did not undergone any surgery or met with accident or suffered any injury. For 2(c) question, he gave answer ‘No’. But he had undergone some investigative procedure in SVIMS hospital. For question.4 regarding present health condition, he answered ‘Yes’. It is no doubt true that he has been in good health condition after the investigative procedure done by SVIMS hospital. From the answers given by the deceased to the said questions, it cannot be said that he deliberately suppressed material facts regarding his health condition. The deceased was brought to the hospital during night time. It appears that he died in the sleep due to discomfort. There is no evidence to show that the cause of death related to the previous investigative procedure undergone by the deceased in SVIMS hospital. Ex.A6 is letter addressed to opposite parties dt:03.05.2016 to consider her claim. Ex.A7 is acknowledgement for Ex.A6. Ex.A8 is equivalent to Ex.A6. Ex.A9 is letter addressed by SDM, LIC dt:06.05.2016 to the complainant stating that repudiation action has been taken after careful analysis of investigation process available as per medical evidence and advised the complainant to represent her grievances to their apex authority. Ex.A10 is acknowledgement dt:23.05.2016 by Zonal Manager, LIC, relating to receipt of Ex.A6 copy. Ex.A11 is letter dt:12.09.2016 addressed to complainant by SDM, LIC, advising her to contact Insurance Ombudsman for any grievances regarding repudiation of claim. Ex.A12 is legal notice dt:06.10.2016 sent by complainant to Secretary, Insurance Ombudsman, Hyderabad, with regard to claim. Ex.A13 is acknowledgement by LIC, Nellore, dt:07.10.2016. Ex.A14 is acknowledgement of LIC, Hyderabad, dt:10.10.2016. Ex.A15 is acknowledgement of Secretary, Insurance Ombudsman, Hyderabad, dt:10.10.2016. Ex.A16 is reply notice dt:19.10.2016 given by Secretary, Insurance Ombudsman, stating that the decision of insurance company is as per the terms and conditions of the policy and that complainant has to approach other Forum for redressing her grievances, as it cannot be entertained by Ombudsman as per RPG Rules, 1998. Exs.A17 and A18 are copies of Aadhar Cards of minor Nagnanda Krishna and his mother, who is natural guardian respectively. Documents filed by the opposite parties are - Ex.B1 true copy of status report of policy No.841765205. Ex.B2 proposal form dt:01.05.2012. There is no dispute with regard to Ex.B2. Ex.B3 is true copy of policy. The original policy was taken by the deceased on 22.05.2012. It is not the case of the opposite parties that the deceased has suppressed any previous disease and medical treatment taken by him prior to obtaining Ex.B3 policy. The case of the opposite parties is that two years later, the policy was lapsed due to non-payment of premium amount by the deceased and thereafter it was revived after six months on payment of premium amount. The deceased had taken treatment in SVIMS hospital and had undergone surgery and that fact was suppressed at the time of revival of the policy and it amounts to playing fraud on the LIC and therefore the claim of the complainant, who is legal heir of the deceased is repudiated. Ex.B4 is personal statement of deceased regarding health at the time of issuance of policy. The questionnaire part of Ex.B4 was already discussed by us and we have come to conclusion that there is no deliberate suppression of material facts regarding treatment taken by the deceased in SVIMS hospital, which is relating to investigative procedure. Ex.B5 is repudiation letter dt:26.03.2016 issued by opposite parties. The opposite parties counsel vehemently argued that cardio angiogram is a kind of surgery and therefore suppression of said fact by the deceased amounts to playing fraud on the LIC. The medical literature submitted to the Forum shows that coronary angiogram is a procedure to widen heart’s blood vessels. The test is generally done to see if there is a restriction in blood flow going to the heart. So, it cannot be said that coronary angiogram is a kind of surgery because no anesthesia is given to the patient. It is also stated in the medical literature for PTCA that it is a procedure that is commonly performed on heart disease to open up the blood vessel to allow the blood to pass more easily.

7.  The counsel for complainant placed reliance on the decision reported in        I (2012) CPJ 378 between Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Dali Kunwar Devda, wherein it is held that “A common man is not supposed to know all the niceties and technicalities of law - Once accepting the premium and having entered into agreement without verifying the facts, Insurance Company cannot wriggle out of liability merely by saying that contract was made by misrepresentation and concealment – Insurance Policies should not be issued and repudiated in such casual mechanical manner – Policy entails liability on both sides – It is rather exploitation of customer and more or less fraud on public – Respondent has been put to great inconvenience in contesting present appeal – Costs of Rs.5,000/- awarded – Impugned order upheld”. In the instant case on hand, at the time of original policy, there is a proposal form given by the policy holder regarding health condition and same is not disputed by the insurance company and the policy was issued. In this case policy was lapsed and again revived. In AIR 2017 Orissa 54 between Mrs.Mamata Satpathy Vs. Zonal Manager LIC of India and others, it is held that “Non-production of personal statement of policy holder regarding his health allegedly suppressing ailment of seizure disorder by insurer – Primary opinion of doctor regarding cause of death recorded as ‘septicaemia’ and not ‘seizure disorder’ – Policy holder not suppressing any material facts regarding serious illness”. In the instant case also, though the deceased had not informed about the investigative procedure done in SVIMS hospital with regard to his chest pain during the period between the policy was lapsed and revival of the same, it does not amounts to deliberate concealment of serious illness. As per the evidence on record, the deceased died suddenly during sleep and it cannot be connected to treatment taken by him in SVIMS hospital before revival of the policy. Hence, we are of the considered view that there is no justification for repudiating the claim of the deceased by the opposite parties. Accordingly we allow this complaint.

8.  In the result, complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay assured amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint, till realization, and also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation, and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. The opposite parties are directed to comply with the order within eight (8) weeks from the date of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- shall also carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order, till realization.                             

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 11^th day of January, 2019.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                      

Lady Member                                                                                               President (FAC)

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

PW-1: B. Radhika @ T. Radhika (Chief affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: Vamsi Mohan (Evidence affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Certified true copy of LIC Policy Bond (Jeevan Ankur Policy) of Late T. Nagaraju S/o. T. Sainath Pillai.(obtained under RTI Act from opposite parties- Since original policy bond obtained by the opposite party No.1 from the complaint for assured claim), filed by the complainant. Dt: 21.07.2017.
	Original copy of LIC Renewal Premium Receipt (Revival) for Rs.14,272/- dt. 18.12.2014 issued by the opposite party to T. Nagaraju, filed by the complainant.
	Original copy of Letter Dt: 06.12.2017 regarding the Information sought under RTI and True copy of Discharge Summary of T. Nagaraju dt.13.09.2013 issued by the SVIMS, Tirupati,  filed by the complainant.
	Original copy of Death Certificate(Date of Death: 11.03.2015) of T. Nagaraju S/o. T. Sainath Pillai issued by Grampanchayat, Chandragiri, Chittoor District, filed by the complainant. Registration No.30/2015. Date of Registration: 13.03.2015.
	True copy of Registered post Letter Dt.26.03.2016 sent by opposite party No.1 to the complainant obtained under RTI Act filed by the complainant.
	Requisition dt.03.05.2016 sent by the complainant to the Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Dargamitta, Nellore filed by the complainant.
	Acknowledgement dt.05.05.2016 of Divisional Office, Nellore, filed by the complainant.
	Requisition dt.03.05.2016 sent by the complainant to the Zonal Manager, LIC of India, South Central Zonal Office, Saifabad, Hyderabad, filed by the complainant.
	Reply Notice. Dt. 06.05.2016 given by the Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Dargamitta, Nellore to the complainant obtained under RTI Act filed by the complainant.
	Acknowledgement dt.23.05.2016 to the Zonal Manager, LIC of India, South Central Zonal Office, Saifabad, Hyderabad, filed by the complainant.
	Reply Notice. Dt.12.09.2016 given by the Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Dargamitta, Nellore to the complainant obtained under RTI Act, filed by the complainant.
	Legal Notice. Dt. 06.10.2016 sent by the complainant to the Secretary, O/o. Insurance Ombudsman, Lakdi-Ka-Pool, Hyderabad-4 and copy marked to the DM, LIC office, Nellore and copy marked to the Zonal Manager, LIC of India, South Central Zonal Office, Hyderabad, filed by the complainant.
	Acknowledgement dt.07.10.2016 of the Divisional Manager, LIC office, Nellore-3, filed by the complainant.
	Acknowledgement dt. 10.10.2016 of the Zonal Manager, LIC of India, South Central Zonal Office, Saifabad, Hyderabad, filed by the complainant.
	Acknowledgment dt.10.10.2016 of the Secretary, O/o. Insurance Ombudsman, Lakdi-Ka-Pool, Hyderabad-4, filed by the complainant.
	Reply Notice dt. 19.10.2016 given by the Secretary, O/o. Insurance Ombudsman, Lakdi-Ka-Pool, Hyderabad-4, filed by the complainant.
	Photo copy of Aadhaar Card No.7921 6545 5560 of the Minor T. Naganadha Krishna S/o. T. Nagaraju, filed by the complainant.
	Photo copy of Aadhaar Card No.9003 2562 9668 of the T.Radhika W/o. T. Nagaraju, filed by the complainant.

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Attested true copy of Status Report of Policy No.841765205. Date of Print: 20.03.2018.
	Attested true copy of Filled in Proposal Form. Dt.01.05.2012.
	Attested true copy of Policy No.844821332. Dt: 22.05.2012.
	Attested true copy of Personal Statement. Dt: 18.12.2014.
	Attested true copy of the Letter from opposite party (LIC of India Dargamitta, Nellore) to complainant B. Radhika. Dt: 26.03.2016.

 

 

                                                                                                                       Sd/-        

                                                                                                                President (FAC)

     // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

          Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

  Copies to:-   1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite parties.