Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/16/2011

Mohd. Rabbani S/o Mohd. Rahmathullah, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Life Insurance Corporation of India, and other - Opp.Party(s)

Sri R. Srinivasulu

21 Jul 2011

ORDER

  BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Thursday, the 21^st day of July, 2011 

                                                     Present:- Sri P. Sridhara Rao, B.Sc., LL.B., President

                                                                     Sri A. Veerupakshi, B.A., LL.B., Member        

      Smt.D.Nirmala, B.Com., LL.B.,Member

C.C.NO. 16  Of   2011

Between:-

Mohd. Rabbani S/o Mohd. Rahmathullah, age 53 years, Occ: Nil,  R/o H.No.6-3-44/D/3/B, Hanumanpura, Mahabubnagar.   

                                                                   … Complainant

And

1. The Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Office, Suryapet,  Nalgonda District.  

2. The Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Secunderabad.                                        … Opposite Parties

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 12-7-2011 in the presence of Sri R. Srinivasulu, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant and Sri K. Pratap Kumar, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite parties and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum made the following:   

O R D E R

  (Sri A. Veerupakshi, Member)

1.  This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite parties to pay the death claim LIC amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant with assured bonus and interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition to till the date of realization in respect of LIC Policy No.603502166 dated 25-1-2010 and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the complaint.   

2. The averments of the complaint in brief are that:-  The complainant is the husband of late Saleema Begum.  During her life time the said Saleema Begum took Jeevan Saral Policy bearing No.603502166 on 25-1-2010 for the maturity amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for a premium amount of Rs.1,278/- per part covering the period from 25-1-2010 to 25-1-2006.  After receiving the said premium amount of Rs.1,278/- from the policy holder Saleema Begum, the opposite parties have accordingly issued a bond.  While the matter stood thus, on 25-2-2010 the policy holder Saleema Begum all of a sudden was shifted to Shifa Clinic near Menaka Talkies, Mahabubnagar due to Cardiac Arrest and she died in the hospital while undergoing treatment.  Thereupon the complainant intimated the death of the policy holder Saleema Begum and had given an application to the opposite parties for settlement of the policy.  Thereafter, though the complainant approached the opposite parties for several times and even after issuance of a legal notice also the opposite parties did not respond him.  Such act on the part of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and thereby the complainant was suffered very much pain and agony. Thus the present complaint is filed for the aforesaid relief.  

3. The opposite parties filed counter stating that the complainant never intimated about the death of the policy holder to the opposite parties and not submitted any claim forms, and that if any such claim is submitted and in case the claim is admitted the opposite parties will dispose the same and pay the claim amount after following the due procedure.  It is further stated that no such legal notices were received by the opposite parties and they came to know about the facts of the case only after receiving the notice of the present complaint, as such there is no deficiency of service by these opposite parties towards the complainant and hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.  

4. Thereupon the complainant in support of his claim filed his affidavit evidence and so also the affidavit evidence of the Doctor in whose clinic the policy holder Saleema Begum died while undergoing treatment and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5.  On the other hand, the OP-1 through its Manager got filed the affidavit evidence while the same was adopted by the OP-2 and got no documents marked. 

5.  The points for determination now are: 

1.  Whether is there any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged?
2.  Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for by him? 
3.   To what effect? 

6. The undisputed facts in the case are that the policy holder Saleema Begum is the wife of the complainant and during her life time she obtained the policy in question from the opposite parties on 25-1-2010 with the maturity value of Rs.1,00,000/- and the said policy covered the period from 25-1-2010 to 25-1-2006.  It is also an admitted fact that while the policy was in force the policy holder Saleema Begum all of a sudden died due to Cardiac Arrest on 25-2-2010 while undergoing treatment in the clinic of P.W.2.  

7. Point Nos.1 and 2:- It is the case of the complainant that after the death of his wife/policy holder Saleema Begum he intimated the same to the opposite parties and had given an application for settlement of the policy and later inspite of his several requests and even after issuance of legal notice also the opposite parties have not settled the claim made by him, as such there is a deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in rendering service to him and therefore the opposite parties are liable to pay the death claim amount together with compensation and costs of the proceedings.  

8. On the other hand, it is the contention of the opposite parties that they have received the notices from this Forum in the present complaint on  2-12-2010 and till then they were not unaware about the death of life assured and in fact the complainant never intimated about the death of the policy holder to them and not submitted any claim forms, and that if any such claim is submitted and in case the claim is admitted the opposite parties will dispose off the same and will pay the claim amount after following due procedure, and that the complainant had suppressed the real and material facts and hastily approached this Forum even without submitting claim forms, and they have not even received any such legal notice as alleged by the complainant and as such there is no deficiency of service by the opposite parties towards the complainant and therefore no relief can be granted to the complainant in the present complaint and thus the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

9. So, as stated above, it is the case of the complainant that after his intimating the death of his wife and given an application for settlement of the policy, the opposite parties have not settled the claim even after his making several requests and issuance of legal notice also. It is the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant not submitted any such claim form and he had also not even produced any proof in that regard and therefore filing of the present complaint without submitting any claim form is liable to be dismissed as premature. So, to consider the rival contentions the question that has to be seen now is whether the complainant had established the said fact by producing any positive proof in that regard.  A perusal of the pleadings of the complaint and as well as the affidavit evidence of the complainant clearly goes to show that the complainant did not even mention the date on which he presented such claim form to the opposite parties and so also not produced any oral or documentary evidence to that effect, except taking a simple plea that he had intimated the death of the policy holder to the opposite parties and given an application for settlement of the policy.  In the absence of any such proof, the complainant cannot allege any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties that they have not settled the claim in time. Furthermore, it is also the contention of the opposite parties that even now they are ready to settle the present dispute as per rules in case of the complainant submits his claim form.  Since the complainant failed to establish the date on which he submitted the claim form to the opposite parties, we find that filing of the present complaint by the complainant at this stage is a premature one and therefore the complainant is not entitled for the relief sought for by him at this stage itself.  But however, in view of the present circumstances and to meet out the interest of justice we are of the view that a direction can be given to the opposite parties to settle the claim of the complainant after following the due procedure and as per rules in the event of the complainant submitting the claim form within the stipulated period as fixed by this Forum at later part of the order. With the aforesaid observation the complaint is thus liable to be dismissed. Both the points are answered accordingly in favour of the opposite parties and against the complainant.      

10. Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.   But however, as observed above, the opposite parties are directed to settle the claim of the complainant after following the due procedure and as per rules in the event of the complainant submitting the claim form within a period of one month from the date of the present order and the complainant will be at liberty to do so.

        Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 21^st day of July, 2011.    

 

        I agree                                                                                      I agree

 

      MEMBER                           MEMBER                           PRESIDENT                      

   Appendix of evidence

      List of Witness examined

On behalf of Complainant:                          On behalf of Opposite Parties:   

- Nil -                                                                   - Nil -           

List of documents marked:-

On behalf of Complainant:-    

Ex.A-1: Photostat copy of Policy Schedule, dt.25.1.2010.

Ex.A-2: Original Medical Certificate, dt.26.2.2010.  

Ex.A-3: Photostat copy of Death Certificate, dt.11.3.2010.

Ex.A-4: Office copy of Legal Notice, dt.18.8.2010.

Ex.A-5: Original Courier Receipt, dt.18.8.2010.

On behalf of OPs.:             

 – Nil- 

                                                                                         PRESIDENT                                                                                                                                                                                              

 

Copy to:-

1. Sri R. Srinivasulu, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant.

2. Sri K. Pratap Kumar, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite parties.