BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 27th day of January, 2006
C.C.No.166/2005
Smt L. Damayantamma,
W/o. Late. L. Venkata Ramaiah,
Aged. 35 years, Hindu,
R/o. G. Sinvaram (V & Post),
Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Divisional Manager,
LIC of India,
Divisional Office,
Kadapa.
2. The Branch Manager,
LIC of India,
Kurnool Branch,
Kurnool Dist. . . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming 23.01.2006 for arguments in the presence of Sri A. Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri M.L. Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.1 and No.2, and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Smt. C.Preethi, Hon’ble Member)
1. This Consumer Complaint of the complainant is filed under Section 12 of C.P. Act seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay assured amount of Rs.50,000/- with 24% interest along with benefits, Rs.10,000/- as compensation, costs of the complaint and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant’s husband L.Venkata Ramaiah insured his life with opposite parties under policies bearing No.652056696 and 652602125 for assured sum of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively and nominated the complainant as nominee under the said policies. The policy holder died on 25-7-2002 due to heart stroke and claim was submitted by the complainant to opposite parties for assured sum. The opposite parties settled the first policy No.652056696 and repudiated the second policy bearing No.652602125 through their letter dated 11-4-2002 stating that the policy holder gave false declaration of his age as 50 years in the proposal form while submitting the first policy. But the complainant submits that the policy holder mentioned correct age in the proposal and the repudiation by opposite parties is arbitrary and capricious and without basis. Hence there arises deficiency of service on part of opposite parties in not honouring the second claim of the complainant.
3. In substantiation of this case the complainant is relied on the following document viz.(1) Repudiation letter dated 11-4-2005 addressed by opposite party No.1 to the complainant, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of her complaint averments and the above document is marked as Ex.A1 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant caused interrogatories to opposite parties and suitabely replied to the interrogatories caused by opposite party.
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 filing written version by opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 adopted the written version of opposite party No.1.
5. The written version of the opposite parties denies any of their liability but admits the policy holder has taken two policies bearing No.652056696 and 652602125 for Rs.10,000/- and 50,000/- respectively. On intimation by the complainant as the death of the policy holder the claim for the first policy was settled as non early claim for Rs.15,036/- and in respect of second policy as it arouse within a 4 months 21 days from the date of revival it was treated as early claim and investigation was conducted, which revealed that the age of the policy holder was 53 years as at 1988 as per voters list of G.Singavaram (V)of Kodumur (Tq) and the policy holder declared himself in the proposal dated 7-11-2001 as 50 years. It is also seen in the proposal dated 20-3-2001 of the policy holders son the age of the policy holder was mentioned as 61 years. Hence, the policy holder deliberately mis-represented his age to secure undue benefit of lower age. As the policy holder declared untrue statements in the proposal dated 7-1-2001 the contract was declared as null and void and the opposite party repudiated the second claim through their letter dated 11-4-2005. Hence, the complainant’s case is not maintainable in this Forum and seeks for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
6. In substantiation of its case the opposite parties relied on the following documents viz.(1) Original policy bond of policy holder dated 7-11-2001 (2) Original proposal form of the deceased policy holder (3) Attested Xerox copy of proposal form of L.Mallikarjuna Setty dated 27-3-2001 and (4) Attested Xerox copy of voters list for the year 1988, besides to the sworn affidavit of opposite party No.1 and the above documents are marked as Ex.B1 to B4 for its appreciation in this case. The opposite parties suitabely replied to the interrogatories caused by the complainant and caused interrogatories to the complainant.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service and deficient conduct on part of opposite parties.
8. The complainant as a wife and nominee of the deceased policy holder L.Venkata Ramaiah under two policies alleges that her husband died on 25-7-2002 due to heart stroke. On the claim preferred by the her the opposite party settled first policy and repudiated the second policy stating that the policy holder withheld correct information regarding his age in the proposal form and the voters list enumerated on 1-1-1988 (Ex.B4) of G.Singavaram (V) of Kodumur (Tq.) reveals that the policy holder was 53 years. Hence, the repudiation by opposite parties was justified. The Ex.B4 is the voters list which was relied by the opposite parties, the particulars given in the voters list has no nexus to prove the age of the voters, the effect of voters list is for registration of a person to vote, wherein he is entitled to vote in an election but to prove the age of a person voters list cannot be evidence to be relied on, hence, from the contents of Ex.B4 relied by the opposite party does not inspire any confidence which can be acted upon. The opposite parties having accepted the insurance coverage to the policy holder under the said policy at the relevant time accepting the age of the policy holder mentioned in the proposal through notarized declaration of his age and by issuing the policy bond 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 sake without any justification.
9. The opposite party also relied on Ex.B3 attested Xerox copy of proposal of L.Mallikarjuna Setty, son of policy holder, wherein the policy holders age was mentioned as 61 years. The said exhibit cannot be relied by the opposite parties as the policy holders age was accepted at the relevant by issuing a policy bond and the proposal in Ex.B 3 was not filled by the proposer. Hence, no credence can be given to Ex B.3.
10. When the death of the policy holder is not in violation of terms and conditions of the policy and when there is no cogent and substantiative material to believe that the policy holder gave untrue statements in the proposal dated 7-11-2001, 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.
11. From the circumstances discussed above, there is absolutely no record placed by the opposite party to disbelief the age mentioned in the proposal form as incorrect. Hence, the act of repudiating the claim of the complainant by 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 performing the statutory duty in repudiating the claim and there by amounting to deficiency of service and there by entitling the complainant to the reliefs sought.
12. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay the assured amount under the policy bearing No.652602125 of L.Venkata Ramaiah to the complainant with 12% interest from the date of demise of the policy holder till realization along with cost of Rs.2,000/- within a month of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 27th day of January, 2006.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties: Nil
List of Exhibits Marked for the complainant:-
Ex A.1 Repudiation letter, dt 11.4.2005 of opposite party No.1 to complainant.
List of Exhibits Marked for the Opposite parties:-
Ex B.1Original policy bond of policy holder dated 7.11.2001.
Ex B.2 Original proposal form of the deceased policy holder.
Ex B.3 Attested Xerox copy of proposal form of L. Mallikarjuna Setty
dated 27.3.01.
Ex B.4 Attested Xerox copy of voters list for the year 1988.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Sri A. Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool
2. Sri M. L. Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
