BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE
Dated this the 22nd April 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C.No.500/2014
(Admitted on 19.12.2014)
Mrs. Shashikala P,
W/o Late Tharanatha P,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at Ananda Shetty Compound,
Pallakere, Bajal Village and Post,
Mangalore.
….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri KA)
VERSUS
The Life Insurance Officer,
K.G.I.D. Officer,
Urwa Store,
D.K. Mangalore.
….....OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sri UA)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:
I. 1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant against opposite party alleging deficiency in service claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant’s husband late Tharanatha P while working as Head Constable at Ullala Police Station during service had obtained 4 Insurance Policies issued by opposite party and paid premium regularly till his death on 18.4.2014. Of the 4 policies opposite party paid in the respect of three policies and repudiated the claim in respect of the 4th policy No.2630493 of Rs.1,15,000/ without reason. The policy issued with effect from 11.1.13. The premium of Rs.1,000/ is a mandatory policy issued by opposite party depend upon increment of the salary and purely service benefit issued to the Constables working in the police department. Even after legal notice issued to opposite party did not make payment hence contending that it amounts to deficiency in service seeks relief claimed in the complaint.
II On behalf of opposite party version was filed contending as the Government Servant are excluded from the purview of the C P Act 1986 to claim any damages against the state bound by service conditions. State Government servants are compulsorily bound to insure their lives with KGID as Karnataka State Government Servants compulsory Life Insurance Rules 1958 and there is no occasion for contract or agreement between the parties. The service is rendered free of charge and the services of the KGID comes under the excluded service under section 2 (1) (o) of the C P Act 1986. The payment of the claim in respect of the 3 policies deceased Tharanath husband of complainant is admittedly that the claim in respect of 4th policy was repudiated by the Director, K.G.I.D, Bangalore on the ground of Suppression of facts as per KGID rules hence seeks dismissal of the complaint.
2. In support of the above complainant Mrs. Shashikala P filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on her and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C3 as detailed in the annexure here below. On behalf of the opposite party Smt. Rathna K (RW1) District Insurance Officer, also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on her and produced documents got marked at Ex.R1 to R4 as detailed in the annexure here below.
III. In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
The learned counsels for both sides filed notes of argument. We have considered entire case file on record including evidence tendered by the parties and notes of argument of the party. Our findings on the points are as under are as follows
Point No. (i): Affirmative
Point No. (ii): Negative
Point No. (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. POINTS No. (i): It is claim by opposite party as the KGID policy issued to the deceased being the statuary policy to a government servant and it was not only for compulsory it was free service. Hence the complainant cannot be termed as a consumer. On this count reference was made to a reported judgment of the Apex Court in State of Orrisa vs Divisional manager LIC and another AIR 1996 SC 2519 referring to section 2(1)(o) of C P Act it is held:
Consumer Protection Act (68 of 1986), S. 2(1)(o) Govt. servant Bound by service conditions State rendering services free of charge In circumstances Govt. servant, held, excluded from purview of Act to claim any damages against State under Act.
2. The fact of the reported cases where such, mention that para 7 of the said reported judgement as follows:
7. It is not in dispute that the respondent was a Government servant and, therefore, he is bound by the service conditions and the State was rendering services free of charge to the contesting respondent. Under those circumstances the Government servant has been excluded from the purview of the Act to claim any damages against the State under the Act. Therefore, if any claim arises for the contesting respondent, it would be open to him to claim, in any other forum, but not under the Act. If the claim is barred by limitation, time taken during, the entire proceedings shall stand excluded.
3. However unlike in the reported case in the case on hand as pointed out for complainant the deceased was paying monthly premium in respect of the policy issued to him by opposite party. Hence the claim of opposite party that it is said compulsory KGID policy issued is free of charge cannot be accepted. Hence the contention for opposite party that in the case of the complainant falls within the mischief of the section 2 (1) (o) of the C P Act is not correct.
4. Hence under the circumstances complainant being the widow of the deceased policy holder Tharanath P in our view is the consumer and the opposite party is the service provider and there is a dispute to be gone into between the parties as contemplated under section 2 (1) (e) of the C P Act. Hence point No.1 answered in the affirmative.
POINTS No. (ii): The ground on which opposite party repudiated complainants claim in respect of the KGID policy in question is the deceased has withheld information of his illness and hospitalization at the time of the purchase of the policy. Ex.R1 is the application for the policy by the deceased it is dated 20.6.12 at column 7 in respect of his health he has answered his health condition is good and in respect of column 7 (b) as to whether he has hospitalised for any disease during any treatment or subject to surgery with in the last of 3 years the answer was in the negative. In the respect of column 7 (c) as to the question with he was leave due to health ground he answer in the negative in respect of the next question as to whether he is suffering from any other including cancer the answer was negative this is dated 20.6.2012. The medical officer of Koteker, D.K had issued the certificate to complainants husband with Ex.R1 and it also did not mention about any illness for hospitalization of complainant’s husband.
2. Ex.R2 is the copy of the policy issued to the complainant house by opposite party. Ex.R3 is the certificate issued by Dr. K Kamalaksh Shenoy Consultant Radiation Oncologist at A.J. Hospital Research Centre, Mangalore on 20.5.2014 in the respect of HL 835 at Ullala Police Station, Mangalore. In the document he has mentioned the date of death as 18.4.2014 and the reason at carcinoma of urinary bladder stage IV presented to our dept on 1st July 2013 with above diagnosis. Immediate cause: cardiorespiratory arrest due to lung mets and the symptoms column he has mention has urinary block, pain and eyes, bones, breathlessness and in the respect of the column pertaining to the what do you think was the probable duration of illness when the treatment began it was answered as 3.4 years duration. The certificate is dated 20.5.2014.
3. In answer to question No.10 post on behalf of opposite party as to whether husband was suffering from incurable decease and he was on prolonged leave prior to the year 2013 and thereafter till his death the answer given by the complainant was not correct during the service he died.
4. But Ex.R4 the reply sent on by opposite party to the legal notice of complainant dated 21.11.14 on 24.1.2015 opposite party has specifically mentioned that contrary to the information furnished in the application for the KGID policy the deceased Tharanath. P as per the information furnished by the higher authority of the deceased policy holder deceased was on leave on medical grounds from 10.8.2010 to 24.9.2010 and from 18.4.2011 to 20.4.2011 as per the letter dated 9.7.2014 and that he had also received the medical expenses. Thus there is withholding of information by the deceased at the time of proposal of the issue of the policy in question. Hence in the circumstance we are of the view opposite party is justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant. Hence we answer point No.2 in the negative.
POINTS No. (iii): Wherefore the following
ORDER
The Complaint is dismissed.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 8 directly typed by steno on computer system to the dictation of President revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 22nd April 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(T.C. RAJASHEKAR) (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Additional Bench, Mangalore Additional Bench, Mangalore
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Mrs. Shashikala P
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1: Copy of the Lawyer notice dated 21.11.2014
Ex.C2: Copy of Insurance Policy bearing No.2630493
Ex.C3: Original Acknowledgement card dated 22.11.2014
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW1 Smt. Rathna K, District Insurance Officer
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Ex.R1: Certified copy of the Proposal Form submitted by Mr. Tharanath P to KGID
Ex.R2: Certified copy of the Policy bearing No.2630493
Ex.R3: Certified copy of the Medical Certificate disclosing the pre existing decease
Ex.R4: Certified copy of the reply to the legal notice dated 24.1.15
Dated: 22.04.2017 PRESIDENT
