Per Smt T. Suneetha, Member:-

This complaint is filed U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, Seeking direction on opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards policy amount, Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the complaint.  

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are hereunder:

        The complainant is the mother of Late Ch.Sudhakar who worked as a civil constable in Sattenapalli and died in a road accident on            17-03-10. While he was alive he took an insurance policy Jeevanasarali bearing No.803506024 from the 2^nd opposite party for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for a period from 27-11-09 to 27-10-44.  At the time of accident the deceased Ch.Sudhakar was holding valid life insurance policy. 

3.      On the death of the deceased the complainant issued a legal notice on 03-12-10 to 1^st opposite party and issued another legal notice on 22-02-11 to the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties.  The 2^nd opposite party informed the complainant through a letter that the subject matter policy was serviced by the Guntur Branch Office – 1 i.e. 3^rd opposite party.  The complainant on receipt of the said letter approached the 3^rd opposite party and requested them to disburse the policy amount to the complainant.  The efforts of the complainant proved futile.  The complainant gave legal notices to 3^rd & 4^th opposite parties for which 3^rd opposite party sent a letter to complainant’s counsel that the policy is in lapsed condition as on date of the death of the deceased. 

4.      The 3^rd & 4^th opposite parties did not communicate about the lapse of the insurance policy to the deceased when he was alive.  The complainant approached the policy authorities through her counsel and applied for details of Life Insurance Policy under Right to Information Act.  Thereafter the police authorities sent a letter stating no L.I.C. particulars of the deceased Ch.Sudhakar was received from L.I.C. Authorities and so did not effect recovery from the salary of the deceased.   Thus there are latches on the part of the opposite parties in non-disbursing the policy amount which is deficiency of service.  Thus the complaint.         

5.    1^st, 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties adopted the version and affidavit of the 4^th Opposite party which is in brief as follows.

        The complaint is not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary party i.e. police department in which the deceased said to have been worked.  The complainant is not a consumer or complainant  and the complaint filed by complainant is not consumer dispute as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

6.     It is true that the life assured took policy at Kakinada Branch of our Corporation on 27-11-09 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under policy No.803506024 and nominated his mother for policy benefits. 

7.      The policy was in lapsed condition because of non payment of premium.  The S.S.S. authorization letter was dispatched to the employer by the 1^st opposite party on 20-12-09 along with other 22 S.S.S. authorization on different  other policies in a single cover by our City Branch-1, Guntur, to the District Police through speed post.  Hence it is not proper to say that our corporation did not send authorization letters to the employer. 

8.      The life assured at the time of opting salary saving scheme signed declaration that he would ensure prompt payment of the premium to the L.I.C. and it is the responsibility of the life assured to see that the concerned premiums are deducted from his salary and remitted to our corporation regularly.  Hence it is not proper on the part of the complainant to blame our corporation.  As the policy was in lapse condition due to non receipt of premium as on the date of the death of the life assured nothing is payable under the policy.  Therefore the complaint is to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 

9.      The complainant and opposite parties filed their respective affidavits. Exs.A-1 to A-19 were marked on behalf of the complainant.  Exs. B-1 and B-2 were marked on behalf of the opposite parties.    

10.    Now the points that arose for consideration in this          complaint are:      

 1.  Whether the complainant is bad for non-joinder of employer

      as a party to the complaint. 

 2.  Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of

     service?

2.  To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

11.    POINT NO. 1 :- The complainant purchased the Jeevanasalari policy under Salary Saving Scheme from the 2^nd opposite party and issued authorization letter to the 2^nd opposite party.  It is the responsibility of the 2^nd opposite party to send authorization letter obtained from the complainant to the employer to effect recovery by way of deduction.  The complainant approached the employer of the deceased through Right to Information Act, and got to know that no intimation was received by the employer about the policy.  In the circumstance the complainant opted for seeking relief from the opposite parties.  Therefore there is no need to join the employer as a party to the complaint.  Thus the complainant is not bad for non-joinder of employer as a party to the complaint. 

12.    POINT NO. 2:- The complainant alleged that the repudiation of the deceased’s claim by the opposite parties is not justified. 

13.   The opposite party repudiated the claim of the deceased on the ground that the “policy was in lapsed condition on account of premium due by the deceased at the time of his death i.e., 17-03-2010

14.    The 4^th opposite party in its version submitted that the Salary Saving Scheme authorization letter of the deceased was sent to the employer i.e., Police department along with 22 other such letters through speed post on 20-12-2009. 

15.    The same was denied by the employer by a letter under Ex. A-13 dated 15-03-12 stating that no request letter from LIC authorities, Kakinada, and other branches has been received to effect salary deduction towards LIC Premium of the deceased / insured and that therefore no recovery has been effected from his salary and paid the premium. 

16.    The opposite parties did not produce any document to show that it had sent the authorization letter of the deceased to the employer.  In the circumstances holding the employer responsible is not proper. 

17.   The conditions and privileges of the policy did not bare any lapse condition with regard to the insured who is allowed to pay premium monthly. 

18.   The 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties failure to send authorization letters to the employer which might have enabled the employer to recover the payments from the salary of the deceased/insured and declaring the policy of deceased as lapsed though policy is not baring any lapse condition to the deceased payment category amounted to deficiency of service. 

The opposite parties filed the following decided cases in support of their contentions which are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 

          1. A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs D.G.K. Murthy, Principal, V.R college, ( III 2001)CPJ 2007.   

2.  National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in C.Rajeswari Vs L.I.C. of India and another (2000 (4) ALT 62(CTA))

3.   A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad,in Kumari Ch.Jayalakshmi Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

19.    In view of above findings directing the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties to pay policy amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant would meet the ends of justice. 

20.    POINT NO. 3:- The relief sought by the complainant was Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and suffering apart from the policy amount. 

21.   The complainant in her complaint did not explain the loss suffered by her due to repudiation of the claim of the deceased. 

22.    Therefore, directing the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony to the complainant would meet the ends of justice.  The policy was issued by 2^nd opposite party and its Divisional Office i.e. 1^st opposite party.  The 3^rd & 4^th opposite parties are no way concerned to the case of the complainant.  Therefore the claim against 3^rd & 4^th opposite parties is dismissed.    

23.    In the result, the complainant is allowed in part as indicated below : 

1.     The 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties  are directed to pay the policy amount of Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest@12% p.a. from the date of repudiation till realization. 

2.     The 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony. 

3.     The 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the complainant.

4.     The claim against 3^rd & 4^th opposite parties is dismissed. 

        The above order shall be complied with in a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the amounts awarded in item No. 2 shall carry the interest @ 9% p.a. till realization.    

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 23^rd day of November, 2012.

Sd/-XXX                                  Sd/-XXX                                  Sd/-XXX

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties: -

                                                                                                            Sd/-XXX

PRESIDENT