Orissa

Rayagada

CC/10/2014

Amita Maharana - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Executive Engineer, Electrical, South co, Gunupur, Dist. Rayagada - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

12 Nov 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 10/ 2014.                                   Date.    12    .     11  . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                          President.

Sri  GadadharaSahu,                                             Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri Alama Srinibas Rao, S/O: Late  Alama Chandra Rao, AT: Near old Bus stand, Po/ Dist: Rayagada.

                                                                                                                                …Complainant.

Versus.

1. The Sr. Divisional Manager,.National Insurance Co. Ltd., 8 India Exchange place, Ground Floor, Kolkata- 700001.
2. G.T.F.S., Berhampur(Ganjam_, Statea:Odisha.                                                   … Opposite parties.

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self

For the O.Ps 1  :- Sri P.Ch.Das, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.P. No.2:- Set exparte.                                                                                                 

JUDGEMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non payment  death claim sum assured for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps No.1  put in their appearance and filed written version  through their learned counsel in which  they refuting allegation made against them and defend the case.  The O.P No.1  taking one and another pleas and  sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P  No. 1 . Hence the O.P No.  1   prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

. On being noticed  the O.P No.2 neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  20 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.P No.2   Observing lapses of around 4 years  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.P  No. 2 is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P No. 2. set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the    O.P  No. 1  and from the   complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                    FINDINGS.

            From the records it reveals that, there is no dispute that the   deceased Alama Chandra Rao,  was insured with the O.P. No.1 under Golden Multi Service Club Ltd., under policy No. 100300/42/04/8200012 valid  for the period from  01.9.2004 to 31.8.2014(copies of the policy is in the file which is  marked as Annexure-I). Smt. Alama Chinnamulu    the wife  of the insured Alam Chandra Rao was the nominee under the said policy.  The O.P. No.1 has no information about the death of the nominee and the  insured on Dt.15.5.2008 and Dt.2.7.2012 respectively(Copies of the death certificate  which is in the file marked as Annexure-2 & 3).    The policy  which was taken by the deceased-Alama Chandra Rao(the father of the complainant) was a Group Personal Accident policy and the risk covered were Accidental Deathj/permanent total disability only.

            The main grievance of the complainant is that  due to non payment of death claim  sum assured by the O.P.  he filed this case. Hence this C.C. case.

        The O.P. No.1 in their written version contended that the present complainant had made correspondence with the O.P. No.1 on August, 2012 intimating that the Nominee and the insurer died on Dt. 15.5.2008 and 2.7.2012 respectively.  In the said letter the complainant has stated that the death of the insured was natural one. On receipt of the said letter  from the O.P. No.2 the O.P. No.1 in its letter Dt.17.7.2013 called the complainant to produce the documents mentioned in the said letter for the settlement of the claim.  As the complainant fail to produce the documents called for, the O.P. No.1 sent reminders vide it’s letter dtd.22.9.2013 and 21.1.2013 to furnish the documents called for. The complainant  in the letter Dt. Nil  received by the O.P. No.1 on Dt.19.12.2013 submitted  some of the documents called for by the O.P. No.1. As the papers submitted by the complainant are not sufficient, the  O.P. No.1 again its letter Dt. 30.12.2013 called for the documents, as mentioned in its letter from the complainant. But the complainant did not produce the documents which are called for. The O.P. No.1 on the basis of the papers received from the complainant had repudiated the claim as the death of the insured Alama Chandra Rao was natural one as such the claim does not come under the purview of the scope of the insurance policy and the same is intimated to the complainant by Regd. Post with A.D. on Dt.24.01.2014.  

        It is admitted  the policy  is a contract between the insurer and the insured inter alia  the terms and conditions which were mentioned in the policy are bound by   both the parties. In the policy bond there is clearly mentioned  that “This is to certify that the following persons are covered under the Group personal accident policy of National Insurance company Ltd.  inter alia risk covered   i.e. Accidental Death/Permanent Total Disablement only.  The complainant in their petition clearly mentioned  the death of the insured  was a natural death.  So the complainant is not entitled the sum insured Rs.50,000/- from O.Ps.  As the policy   itself is a accidental policy, if  the insured  met  accidental death or permanent total  Disablement  then he will be entitled  sum insured Rs.50,000/-from  the O.Ps.

 

This forum  completely agreed with views taken in written version inter alia   the documents filed by the O.P No.1  in  the present case. Hence  this forum  feel the complainant is not entitled any  relief from this forum and   liable to be dismissed.

To meet the ends of justice the following order is passed.

ORDER.

In  resultant the complaint petition stands  dismissed. In the circumstances there is no order as to costs.  Accordingly the case  is disposed of.

Dictated and corrected by me               Pronounced on this       12  ^th.   Day of   November,  2018.

 

 

Member.                              Member.                                          President