Date of Filing: 04-03-2013
Date of Disposal: 13-10-2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTHAPURAMU
PRESENT: - Kum.Y.H.Prameela Reddy, M.A., LL.B., President,
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., Male Member
Monday, the 13th day of October, 2014
C.C.NO.17/2013
Between:
Kunchapu Venkata Lakshmi
W/o Late K.Ramanna
r/o Kothacheruvu Village & Mandal,
Ananthapuramu District. …. Complainant
Vs.
- The Manager,
Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank,
Kothacheruvu Village & Mandal,
Ananthapuramu District.
- The Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Subash Road, Meda Complex,
Ananthapuramu. …. Opposite Parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri P.Chenna Reddy, advocate for the complainant and Sri B.Nagalingam, Advocate for the 1st Opposite party and Sri V.Krishna Sharma, Advocate for the 2nd opposite party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments on both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, Male Member : - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 & 2 claiming a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards P.A.I.S. with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization and also award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: - The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is the wife of the deceased K.Ramanna, who is an agriculturist and native of Kothacheruvu Village & Mandal. The complainant’s husband during his life time has taken crop loan from the 1st opposite party and has become a KCC Policyholder. Subsequently, the complainant died due to snake bite while he was in his fields on 23-01-2011. Then the complainant’s husband was shifted to Puttaparthy Hospital for treatment and on the advise of the doctors he was shifted to Columbia Asia Hospital, Bangalore on 24-01-2011 for better treatment. Subsequently the complainant’s husband died on 02-02-2011 while undergoing treatment. A police case was registered by Kothacheruvu P.S. in Crime No.07/2011 and an autopsy was conducted on the body of the deceased and in the postmortem report the cause of death was shown as death due to septicemia consequent to snake bite. Later the complainant informed the 1st opposite party about the death and requested to forward an application for grant of compensation under Personal Accident Insurance Policy, the same was forwarded by 1st opposite party to the 2nd opposite party with necessary documents. Later the 2nd opposite party has repudiated the claim application of the complainant on 10-01-2013 with some objections. Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming the sum assured under policy along-with interest @ 12% p.a. and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony.
3. The 1st opposite party filed a counter stating that the complainant’s husband was a Savings Bank Account-holder and he was a member of PKCC policy. A sum of Rs.5/- was debited from the account of the complainant’s husband and the same was forwarded to the 2nd opposite party to cover under the policy No.051000/47 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- in case of accidental death.
4. The 1st opposite party submitted that in terms of consolidated policy taken by the Head Office covering KCC borrowers of all branches in Anantapur, Kadapa, Kurnool, Nellore and Prakasham Districts for a period of one year and the new branches need not submit any statement giving the list of PKCC borrowers to be covered under PAIS and also need not remit any premium to the Insurance Company. In terms of group master policy agreement entered by the Bank with 2nd opposite party with effect from 01-08-2007. Policies are to be renewed every year by submitting the branch wise details based on the information submitted by the branches as on 31st July every year and paid premium to the 2nd opposite party for renewal of the policy for a further period of one year with 5% extra premium to cover the fresh PKCC limits to be sanctioned. All the branches shall obtain the list of PKCC holders including LIC/DD and NPA accounts and are required to debit borrower’s share of PAIS premium of Rs.5/- on due date i.e. after completion of one year from the earlier debit. For fresh PKCC accounts sanctioned the premium shall be debited immediately and details shall be sent to the Regional Office. Further the 1st opposite party submitted that as per rules on behalf of the branch the Head Office remitted the premium regularly to the 2nd opposite party. Thus the date of debit to the PKCC account is not relevant as the Head Office has taken consolidated policy covering all PKCC borrowers of 1st opposite party branches. As per the particulars of the 1st opposite party has covered 733 PKCC accounts in respect of Kothacheruuv Branch with additional 5% accounts for the year 2010-11. Further the 1st opposite party submitted that immediately after a request from the complainant, the application of the complainant intimating the death was sent to the 2nd opposite party with a request to send the claim for submission of the same together with relevant papers seeking settlement of the claim. Hence the 1st opposite party has promptly acted and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 1st opposite party. The deduction of premium amount and remittance of the premium to the 2nd opposite party was as per rules and forwarded the claim with relevant papers to 2nd opposite party.
5. Counter filed by the 2nd opposite party stating that the allegation that the deceased K.Ramanna has paid premium to the 1st opposite party and obtained membership for the KCC Policy and the said policy was in force on the alleged date of snake bite is to be proved by the complainant. The further allegation that the deceased is one of the beneficiaries in the policy No.051000/47/10/43/00000162 should be proved in order to claim the death benefit of Rs.50,000/-. The 2nd opposite party submitted that the allegation that the complainant’s husband Ramanna went to water his fields and he was bite by a snake on 23-01-2011 at about 9.00 A.M. and immediately he was shifted to Puttaparty Hospital for treatment and as per the advise of the doctors the said Ramanna was shifted to Columbia Asia Hospital, Bangalore for better treatment on 24-01-2011 and while undergoing treatment the said Ramanna died on 02-02-2011 is also to be proved by the complainant. The further allegation that the complainant’s husband died due to snake bite is absolutely false and it is invented for the purpose of wrongful gain from the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party submitted that as seen from the records the police complaint is given at a belated stage i.e. after the death of the deceased only. The records do not disclose the cause for abnormal delay in preferring the complaint. The allegation in the complaint that the deceased died due to snake bite is not correct and there is no eye-witness to the occurrence of the alleged incident. The 2nd opposite party further submitted that though it is mentioned that the cause of death of the deceased was due to snake bite by the hospital authorities, there is no R.F.S.L. report to confirm the death of the deceased that it is only due to snake bite. Further the 2nd opposite party submitted that when the said deceased Ramanna was alive for nearly 11 days after the alleged snake bite no complaint is preferred by him either to police or to the hospital authorities and no statement is recorded by any one. The 2nd opposite party further submitted that the postmortem report also does not disclose that there are external marks on the body of the deceased to confirm that the complainant’s husband died due to snake bite. Further the 2nd opposite party submitted that it is highly impossible to be alive for 11 days after snake bite which clearly shows that the deceased did not die due to snake bite but died due to some other reason. The 2nd opposite party submitted that there is abnormal delay in giving death intimation to the 2nd opposite party, which is a clear violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence the 2nd opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd opposite party.
6. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite
parties 1 & 2 ?
2. To what relief?
7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, evidence on affidavit of the complainant has been filed and marked Ex.A1 to A9 documents. On behalf of the 1st opposite party, evidence on affidavit of 1st opposite party has been filed and marked Ex.B1 & B2 documents and on behalf of the 2nd opposite party, evidence on affidavit of 2nd opposite party has been filed and marked Ex.B3 document.
8. Heard both sides.
9. POINT NO.1 - The counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant’s husband during his life time has taken crop loan from the 1st opposite party and he was a member of PKCC and he was covered under PAIS policy. Subsequently, the complainant’s husband while watering to his fields he was bite by a snake on 23-01-2011. Then he was shifted to Puttaparthy Hospital for treatment and on the advise of the doctors he was shifted to Columbia Asia Hospital, Bangalore on 24-01-2011 for better treatment. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant’s husband while undergoing treatment died on 02-02-2011. The counsel for the complainant submitted that on information Kothacheruvu Rural police registered the case in Crime no.07/2011 and an inquest was conducted on the body of the deceased. The counsel for the complainant submitted that a postmortem was conducted on the body of the complainant’s husband by Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Medical College and Hospital, Bangalore, which is marked as Ex.A3 and in the said postmortem report, it was mentioned that the cause of death was due to septicemia consequent to snake bite, which clearly shows that the complainant’s husband died only due to snake bite. The counsel for the complainant submitted that later the complainant has approached the 1st opposite party and requested the 1st opposite party to arrange for payment under PAIS Scheme and on her request the 1st opposite party has given death intimation to the 2nd opposite party and requested to settle the claim. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the 2nd opposite party has repudiated the claim application of the complainant on 10-01-2013 with some objections. The counsel for the complainant contended that the 2nd opposite party has repudiated the claim on flimsy grounds, but the opposite parties are liable to pay the sum assured under the policy with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony to the complainant.
10. The counsel for the 1st opposite party submitted that the complainant’s husband was a member of PKCC and he was covered under PAIS Policy as on the date of death. The counsel for the 1st opposite party submitted that a sum of Rs.5/- was deducted from all the PKCC account-holders towards insurance premium and the same is forwarded to the 2nd opposite party to cover under the policy. The counsel for the 1st opposite party submitted that a group master policy agreement was entered into by the Bank with the 2nd opposite party with effect from 01-08-2007 and the same is renewed every year by submitting branch-wise details of PKCC accounts. The Head Office estimated the outstanding PKCC accounts based on the information provided by the branches as on 31st July of every year and paid the premium to the 2nd opposite party for renewal of the policy for further a period of one year with extra 5% premium to cover the PKCC limits that are to be sanctioned. The counsel for the 1st opposite party submitted that as per the rules on behalf of 1st opposite party Head Office remitted the premium regularly to the 2nd opposite party and the said premium was debited into account of PKCC holders and as per coverage towards 1st opposite party has covered 733 PKCC accounts in respect of Kothacheruvu Branch with additional 5% accounts for the year 2010-2011.
11. Further the counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the payment of premium is made by the Head Office of the 1st opposite party on consolidated basis and the said premium amounts are debited in the accounts of the respective PKCC accounts-holders. The 1st opposite party counsel submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 1st opposite party in remitting the premium to the 2nd opposite party and also forwarding the claim with relevant papers to 2nd opposite party. As the 1st opposite party has promptly forwarded the claim clearly shows that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 1st opposite party.
12. The counsel for the 2nd opposite party submitted that the allegation in the complaint that the deceased K.Ramanna had paid premium to the 1st opposite party and he was a member of KCC Policy and the said policy was in force on the date of the alleged occurrence is not admitted as it has to be proved by the complainant with proof. The counsel for the 2nd opposite party submitted that the alleged snake bite to Ramanna while he was watering his fields on 23-01-2011 and he was shifted to Puttaparty Hospital for treatment and on the advise of the doctors the said Ramanna was shifted to Columbia Area Hospital, Bangalore for better treatment on 24-01-0211 and while undergoing treatment the said Ramanna died on 02-02-2011 is also denied. The counsel for the 2nd opposite party submitted that the complainant has filed this complaint for wrongful gain from the 2nd opposite party. The counsel for the 2nd opposite party contended that the police records clearly shows that the complaint was given at a belated stage i.e. after death of the deceased only and even there is no reason shown for the delay in preferring the complaint. The counsel for the 2nd opposite party further contended that though the cause of death of the deceased was due to snake bite there was no R.F.S.L. Report to confirm the cause of death of the deceased and further the postmortem report also does not disclose that there was external injury due to snake bite. The counsel for the 2nd opposite party argued that the deceased K.Ramanna was alive for nearly 11 days after the alleged snake bite, which is highly impossible and the complainant has not preferred any complaint to the police or hospital authorities as per records.
13. The counsel for the 2nd opposite party argued that there was a delay of 75 days in intimating the death of the deceased. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, the death intimation should be given immediately or within 30 days from the date of occurrence. Further the counsel for the 2nd opposite party contended that after receiving belated death intimation, the 2nd opposite party after going through the records has rightly repudiated the claim on valid grounds through letter dt.10-01-2013 showing reasons for repudiation, hence there is absolutely no deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd opposite party. The counsel for the 2nd opposite party argued that in the above circumstances, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd opposite party and they are not liable to pay any compensation under the policy or any amount towards mental agony.
14. After hearing the arguments of both sides and perusing the documents, the fact is that the complainant’s husband was one of the beneficiary of the policy taken by the 1st opposite party from the 2nd opposite party even though 2nd the opposite party contradicted the taking of the policy by the deceased K.Ramanna. As seen from Ex.B1 and B2, which clearly shows that a sum of Rs.5/- is debited from the account of the deceased K.Ramanna on 02-09-2010. Hence, the contention of the 2nd opposite party that the complainant has to prove the taking of the policy from the 2nd opposite party cannot be considered as it is proved beyond doubt through Ex.B1 & B2 which are filed by the 1st opposite party. Further the contention of the 2nd opposite party is that there was a delay in intimation of the death of the deceased, which cannot be considered as the complainant is an uneducated woman and intimated the occurrence of the death of her husband to the 1st opposite party and the same was in turn intimated to the 2nd opposite party and made a claim subsequently.
15. The contention of the 2nd opposite party is that there is no RFSL Report filed by the complainant in order to prove that the death of the deceased K.Ramanna was due to snake bite only. This point also cannot be considered because the complainant has filed a certificate issued by the Department of Forensic Medicines, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Medical College, Bangalore stating that there was no provision for analysis of viscera at State Forensic Science Laboratory is not being done in Karnataka at that time which is marked as Ex.A7 and further certified that the deceased died due to snake bite. Further the document Ex.A8, which is the Death Summary of Columbia Asia Hospital, Bangalore also clearly shows that the deceased died due to snake bite and in Ex.A9 which is a Medical Certificate of cause of death issued by Columbia Asia Hospital, Bangalore also clearly shows that the death was consequent of snake bite. Further, postmortem report, which is marked as Ex.A3 also clearly establishes that the death was due to septicaemia consequent to snake bite sustained.
16. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant has proved beyond doubt that the death of K.Ramanna was due to snake bite and on the other hand the 2nd opposite party has not filed any document to show that the deceased died due to some other reason i.e. other than snake bite. Hence, the contention of the 2nd opposite party cannot be considered and the 2nd opposite party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the sum assured and also pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization. Further the complaint against the 1st opposite party is dismissed as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 1st opposite party.
17. POINT NO.2 – In the result, the complaint is allowed partly by directing the 2nd opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the sum assured with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization within one month from the date of this order. As interest is awarded, no amount is awarded towards mental agony. However, the complaint against 1st opposite party is dismissed as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 1st opposite party.
Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum this the 13th day of October, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER, PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
-NIL- -NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 - Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.07/2011 of Kothacheruvu P.S.
Ex.A2 - Attested copy of Inquest report relating to deceased K.Ramanna
Ex.A3 - Attested copy of postmortem report relating to deceased K.Ramanna.
Ex.A4 - Attested copy of final report relating to deceased K.Ramanna submitted by
the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kothacheruvu P.S. to the Sub-Divisional Police
Officer, Dharmavaram.
Ex.A5 – Repudiation letter dt.10-01-2013 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the
1st Opposite party.
Ex.A6 - Attested copy of proceedings dt.06-07-2011 of the Mandal Executive
Magistrate, Kothacheruruv.
Ex.A7 - Original Viscera report relating to deceased K.Ramanna issued by the Dept. of
Forensic Medicine, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Medical College, Bangalore.
Ex.A8 - Original Death Summary relating to deceased K.Ramanna issued by Columbia
Asia Hospital, Bangalore.
Ex.A9 - Original Medical Certificate of Cause of Death relating to deceased K.Ramanna
issued by Columbia Hospital, Bangalore.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1
Ex.B1 – Original Remittances Statement of Account dt.05-04-2013 issued by the
1st opposite party.
Ex.B2 - Outstanding PKCC Accounts as on 31-07-2010 issued by the 1st opposite
party.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2
Ex.B3 – True copy of Kishan Credit Card Scheme Policy bearing No.051000/47/10/43
00000129 issued by the 2nd opposite eparty
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER, PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
Typed JPNN
