BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Thursday the 7th day of August, 2008
C.C.No. 110/08
Between:
C. Nagarajasarma,
S/o. Late C. Laxmaiah,
Assistant Regional Manager in,
Indipharma Private Limited,
R/o. 43/61, Upstairs,
N.R.Pet,
Kurnool. Complainant/Petitioner
Versus
1. The Manager,
Met Life India,
Insurance Private Limited,
6-3-1085/D 6th Floor,
Dega Towers, Rajabhavan Road,
Secunderabad.
2. The Manager,
Met Life India,
Insurance Private Limited,
Brigade Seshamahal,
5 Vanivilas Road,
Basavanagudi,
Bangalore – 560004.
3. The Manager,
Met Life India Insurance Private Limited,,
M.R.B. Trade Centre,
40/301/10, Railway Station Road,
Bangarupeta,
Kurnool. Opposite parties/Respondents
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. V. Bhaskar, Advocate, for the complainant, and opposite parties are called absent set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, President)
C.C.No.110/08
1. This case of the complainant is filed seeking direction on the opposite parties for repayment of all the amounts paid by the complainant to the opposite parties with market rate of interest, Rs.5 lakhs amount towards mental agony suffered by the complainant at the acts of the opposite party alleging the complainant joined as a member subscribing to the Met Smart Plus Policy No.1200 600 217035 issued by the opposite party on 2-9-2006 and the complainant is regular in payment of periodical premiums of the said policy through cheques and bank drafts and while the periodical premium for the month of July 2007 and August, 2007 was sent vide cheque bearing No.493668 dated 3-7-2007 and cheque No.493670 on 4-8-2007 and they were enchased by the opposite party on 11-7-2007 and 14-8-2007 respectively , the periodical premium for the month of September, 2007 when was sent vide cheque No.493,673 dated 3-9-2007 the opposite party returned the same without any valid reasons and as the personal approaches of the complainant failed, a legal notice was issued 15-4-2008 for which the opposite party replied on 24-4-2008 as to the lapse of the policy and its reinstatement if arrears of premium from September, 2007 to April 2008 amounting to Rs.16,000/- is paid . The indifferent attitude of the opposite parties as to the policy bond of the complainant not only amounting to deficiency but also ensuing untold hardships and mental agony for which the opposite parties hold liability.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties remained absent to the proceedings and there by they were set ex-parte and so the case of the complainant is disposed on the merits of complainant’s side.
3. In substantiation of the contentions the complainant side has relied upon the documentary record in Ex.A1 to A5 besides to his sworn affidavit in reiteration of his complaint averments .
4. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has established the liability of the opposite parties to the complainant’s claim .
5. The Ex.A1 is the policy bond issued by the opposite parties in favour of the complainant for a term of 60 years commencing it from 2-9-2006 for being concluded on 26-10-2065s for an amount of coverage of Rs.4,80,000/- and the installment of premium payable under the policy by the complainant is Rs.2,000/- per month . The issual of the said policy being not discredited otherwise, the Ex.A1 stands for in favour of the complainant as holder of said policy .
6. The Ex.A2 is the lapse notice given by the opposite parties to the complainant on 31-8-2007 alleges the said policy lapsed from July 2nd 2007 it mentions to comply the reinstament requisition form for reviving the policy . The legal notice in Ex.A3 contends the premium amounts for the months of July and August 2007 payable to the policy were sent vide cheques No.493668 dated 3-7-2007 and Cheque No. 493670 dated 4-8-2007 and they were enchased by the opposite party on 11-7-2007 and 14-8-2007. The Ex.A5. letter issued by Senior Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Kurnool lends corroboration to the above said averment of the complainant as to the payment of premium amounts for the months of July & August 2007 vide cheques referred above . From these material it remains clear that the due premium under the Ex.A1 policy was sent by the complainant vide cheques and the said amount was paid . When such is the thing as to the payment of the premiums of July, August, 2007 under Ex.A1 policy by the complainant , there appears any justification for the opposite parties to lapse the Ex.A1 policy as mentioned in Ex.A2 .
7. The perusal of Ex.A4 reply of the opposite parties to the notice in Ex.A3 it appears that the lapse notice was given to the complainant as City Bank intimated the cheque bearing No.493668 for Rs.2,000/- could not be honored due to insufficiency of funds in the account of complainant . As any such intimation of city bank is placed for appreciation of the justifiability of the action of the opposite parties in lapsing the policy from July , 2007 and on the other hand from the reading of contents of Ex.A4 the cheque beaing Nos. 493668 & 493670 each for Rs.2,000/- as were in receipt of the opposite parties and from the Ex.A5 those cheques were enchased on 11—7-2007 and 14-8-2007 there appears any justification in the conduct of the opposite parties in causing lapse notice under Ex.A2 and thereafter requesting for payment of premiums in arrears for the months commencing from September 2007 till April, 2008 amounting to Rs.16,000/-, especially when the cheque bearing No. 493673 dated 3-9-2007 alleged to have been sent by the complainant towards the premium of September , 2007 was said to have been retuned by the opposite party without any valid reason and the said fact alleged in Ex.A3 notice not even denied by the opposite party in his reply under Ex.A4 .
9. In the above circumstances the non payment of the monthly premiums schedule under the said policy appears to be not on account of complainant’s conduct but appears to be at the indifferent attitude of the opposite parties in accepting the tendered monthly premiums under cheques . Therefore having such deficient conduct at their part , the opposite parties are not justified in lapsing the policy from September 2007 on the pretext of due of said premium . But however there being any mention in the complaint avements, sworn affidavit averments or the legal notice avements as to why the monthly premiums subsequent to September 2007 were not tendered by the complainant to the opposite party nor there being any mention in them that they were tendered regularly after to September 2007 also and they were not accepted by the opposite party . Hence, in the said circumstances the Ex.A1 policy is remaining due for the payment of premiums from September 2007 onwards and by the date of Ex.A3 notice itself the said due of premiums remains for 8 months . Therefore, there appears every reasonability in opposite parties Ex.A4 requiring the complainant the payment of the said 8 months due premium amounting to Rs.16,000/- for reinstament of the policy which practically remained lapsed for want of payment of premiums from September 2007 onwards.
10. In the absence of any material from the complainant side with any reasonable explanation for non tendering the monthly due premiums subsequent to September 2007 onwards there appears any justifiability in the claim of the complainant as made in the complaint except seeking for reinstament of the policy paying the premium dues up to date to the opposite party , as per rules governing said policy .
11. Consequently, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to refund the amount so far received from the complainant under the said policy premiums as per rules governing the said policy if the complainant does not wish the renew the policy by making necessary payment of premiums due. Time granted for compliance is one month from the receipt of this order. In default the opposite parties shall be liable jointly and severally to pay the amount so far received from the complainant under the premiums of the policy with 9% interest along with cost of Rs.2,000/- from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 7th August, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Policy.
Ex.A2. Legal notice dated 31-8-2007.
Ex.A3. Notice dated 15-1-2008 along with speed post receipt and
acknowledgement.
Ex.A4. Reply dated 24-4-2008 of opposite party to complainant.
Ex.A5. Bankers Certificate dated 6-8-2008.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: Nil
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
