BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, VELLORE DISTRICT AT VELLORE. PRESENT: THIRU. A. SAMPATH, B.A., B.L., PRESIDENT TMT. G. MALARVIZHI, B.E. MEMBER – I THIRU. K. DHAYALAMURTHI,B.SC. MEMBER – II CC. 29/ 2007 WEDNESDAY THE 11th DAY OF MAY 2011 N. Ranganayaki, W/o. Late N. Balakrishnan, No.14/8, Police Line Street, Gudiyatham, Gudiyatham Taluk, Vellore District. … Complainant. - Vs – 1. The Manager, (Claims), LIC of India, Divisional Office, Chennai Division – II, C-47, 2nd Avenue, Anna Nagar, Plaza, Chennai – 40. 2. The Branch Manager, LIC of India, City Branch VII, No.232, N.S.C. Bose Road, Bombay Mutual Buildings, Chennai – 01. 3. The Branch Manager, LIT of India, Arcot Road, Vellore. … Opposite parties . . . . This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 10.5.2011, in the presence of Thiru. J. Sridharan, Advocate for the complainant and Thiru. L. Pandurangan, Advocate for the opposite parties, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following: O R D E R Pronounced by Thiru. A. Sampath, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore District. 1. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant’s husband Late N. Balakrishna Naidu took an Insurance Policy from one M/s. The Asian Assurance Company Limited for a sum of Rs.10,000/- vide Policy No.112190 on 24.11. 1949. The period of the policy was 30 years and the policy matured on 24.11.79. Mean while the Asian Assurance Company Limited was taken over by the Life Insurance Company of India and the new policy number assigned as 7712190. In the mean time, the complainant husband N. Balakrishna Naidu died on 5.6.76 leaving behind the complainant as his wife as well as nominee of the above said policy. The complainant has no knowledge about the policy taken by her husband till 1998. But on the other hand, the opposite parties have also not issued any intimation to the complainant’s husband’s policy regarding the maturity of the policy or to claim the arrears of the policy due if any by her husband. Due to the opposite parties deficiency of service to the policy holders just like the complainant, the opposite parties are unable to trace to which branch would deal the complainant’s policy matter. Finally in the year 2002, the opposite parties have told that City Branch VII, B.M. Building, Chennai namely 2nd opposite party has jurisdiction over the complainant’s claim. As per the direction of the 2nd opposite party on 28.6.02 the complainant has handed over the original policy, change of nomination, nomination endorsement and death certificate of N. Balakrishna Naidu to the 2nd opposite party. But there is no proper reply from the 2nd opposite party. Hence, the complainant has no other option except to lodge a complaint against the opposite parties illegal activities before the Assistant Secretary, Office of Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai – 18 on 15.6.05. The office of Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai also requested the opposite parties to deal with the matter urgently and copy of the letter dt. 24.6.05 also send to the complainant. The complainant has sent a reminder letter dt. 23.10.05 to the office of Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai and they also replied on 3.11.05 there will be no suitable result. On 12.12.05 the office of Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai sent a letter to their client stating that the claim is time barred because the insured was dead more than 24 years ago. The above said dt. 28.6.02 acknowledgement issued by the 2nd opposite party, 15.6.05 dt. Letter and 23.10.05 remainder send by the complainant and the reply by the Insurance Ombudsman dt. 24.6.05, 3,11,05, and 12.12.05. 2. The insured N. Balakrishna Naidu was dead 24 years ago from the date of the complainant’s claim. The complainant has knowledge about the insurance policy only in the year 1998 and she repeatedly approached the opposite parties for the recover of the matured amount. The policy taken by the complainant’s husband in the year 1949 for a sum of RS.10,000/- and the said policy is very huge amount at that time. As per the policy conditions, the opposite parties are bound and duty to intimate the maturity of the policy to the concern policy holder or his nominee as per their record and settle the matter immediately after the maturity of the policy. In fact the complainant’s husband had regularly paid the installments till his life time and she reliably learned and believed to be true that there is no arrears of policy premium till the life time of N. Balakrishna Naidu. But in this case, the opposite parties have failed to send any intimation or any other communication to their policy holder or his nominee for amicable settlement as per their rules and regulation. It clearly shows that the opposite parties activities in respect of the complainant client are biased one and they want to cheat the complainant’s bonafide claim over the said policy. The delay in non-communication of the policy maturity and other details in time is on the part of the opposite parties not on the part of the complainant. Hence, if any delay for settlement of the maturity amount is only due to deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties alone. Due to the above said reason complainant has issued legal notice to the opposite parties on 9.7.06 and called upon the opposite parties to settle her husband N. Balakrishna Naidu’s policy premium amount with accrued interest within a week. The opposite parties received the said notice on 15.7.06 and 14.7.06 respectively and failed to issue any reply to the complainant. The copy of the notice also send to the office of the Insurance Ombudsman and they also received the same on 14.7.06 and they also failed to issue any reply till this date. Therefore, the complainant prayed that this Forum for directing the opposite parties to pay the Insurance Premium amount with accrued interest to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as damages for mental agony, inconvenience, loss and hardship due to gross deficiency of service along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the cost of this proceedings. 2. The counter filed by the 3rd opposite party and adopted by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties are as follows: The opposite parties denies all the averments in the complaint except save those that are specifically admitted herein and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same. The averments of the complaint of the complainant that inspite of the representation the amount due to her in view of the policy No.77112190 of her husband’s death has not been paid the Ombudsman of the Insurance Company also decided and negativated the claim of the complainant without any reason, that the opposite parties are liable to the Insurance Premium with interest on the sum of assured Rs.10,000/- Rs.5 lakhs as compensation with interest at 18% p.a. for the alleged deficiency of service, that Rs.50,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings etc. are all false and made for the purpose of this case and is tenable in law. The Life Assured N. Balakrishna Naidu took an Insurance Policy from the Asian Assurance Company Limited, Bombay under policy No.112090 with date of commencement 24.11.49 for 30 years term for a sum assured Rs.10,000/-. The Asian Assurance Company was taken over by Life Insurance Corporation of India and the New policy No. assigned to the above policy as 77112190 and not as 771290 as mentioned in para-3 of the complaint. That as per death certificate produced the life assured expired on 5.6.76. The death of the Life assured was reported only in April 1998. Hence it is a time barred claim as per law of limitations. As per Sec. 24(a) of C.P. Act 1986, the Forum shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date of which the cause of action has arisen. In this case that there was no sufficient or bonafide reasons has been explained either no separate application has been field by the complainant to take the case on file. On this ground alone the complaint has to be dismissed as preliminary issue. The Original policy effected the change of nomination infavour of Smt. N. Ranganayaki Amma was effected on 9.12.74. The death of the life assured is on 5.6.76. The policy docket is not available with the opposite party hence the death claim must have been settled in the early year 1976 itself without the original policy. The complainant Ranganayaki amma in her letter dt. 24.4.98 claimed only maturity claim and not the death claim. The question of maturity claim does not arise once the death claim is paid. The Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai in their vide letter 10(CHN) 202.2.2152/2005-2006 dt. 12.12.05 also after going through the paper sent a reply to the complainant informing her that they are not in a position to entertain her complaint since it is more than 24 years have been lapsed from the date of death of life assured. They have received a legal notice dt. 15.7.06 from the complainant but no reply has been given since Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai had already conveyed that the claim is time barred and not in a position to entertain the complaint. Without prejudice to the above contention it is further contends that the claim of the complainant as prayed for in the complaint with regard to the Insurance claim of Rs.10,000/- towards damages Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at 18% per annum and Rs.50,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings etc. will not be entitled by the complainant. Complaint is filed by barred by period of limitation hence the complaint has to be dismissed with costs. 3. Now the points for consideration are: a) Whether this complaint is barred by limitation? b) Whether there is any deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite party c) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?. 4. Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 were marked on the side of the complainant and no documents were marked on the side of the opposite parties. Proof affidavit of the complainant and Proof affidavit of the opposite parties have been filed. No oral evidence let in on the side of opposite party. 5. POINT NO. (a) : It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant’s husband Late N. Balakrishna Naidu took an Insurance Policy from M/s. The Asian Assurance Company Limited for a sum of Rs.10,000/- vide Policy Ex.A1 No. 112190 on 24.11.1949, and the policy matured on 24.11.79. The above said Asian Assurance Company Limited was taken over by the opposite parties Life Insurance Company of India and the new policy number assigned as 7712190. In the mean time, the complainant’s husband N. Balakishna Naidu died on 5.6.76, leaving behind the complainant as his wife as well as nominee of the above said policy. 6. The complainant contented that the complainant has no knowledge about the policy taken by her husband till 1998, and the opposite parties have also not issued any intimation to the complainant’s husband’s policy, regarding the maturity of the policy or to claim the arrears of the policy due if any by her husband. Further, the opposite parties are unable to trace out to which branch would deal the complainant’s policy matter. Finally, in the year 2002 the opposite parties have told that City Branch VII, B.M. Building, Chennai namely 2nd opposite party has jurisdiction over the complainant’s claim. As per the direction of the 2nd opposite party, the complainant handed over the original policy, change of nomination, nomination endorsement and death certificate of life assured N. Balakrishna Naidu on 28.6.02 to the 2nd opposite party. But there is no reply from the 2nd opposite party. So, the complainant has lodged a complaint against the opposite parties before the Assistant Secretary, Office of Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai – 18 on 15.6.05. The office of Insurance Ombudsman has stated that the above policy is time barred for claiming. If any delay for settlement of the maturity amount is only due to deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties alone. 7. The opposite parties contended that the death of the life assured N. Balakrishna Naidu was reported only in April 1998. Hence it is a time barred claim as per law of limitations. As per Sec.24 (a) of C.P. Act 1986, the Forum shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date of which the cause of action has arisen. The Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai in their vide letter No.10(CHN) 202.2.2152/2005-2006 dt. 12.12.05 also after going through the paper sent a reply to the complainant informing her that they are not in a position to entertain her complaint since it is more than 24 years have been lapsed from the date of death of life assured. 8. From the perusal of the complaint Ex.A3, dt. 15.6.05, lodged before the Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai, it is mentioned that the complainant’s husband expired on 5.6.76 and the complainant was not aware of the existence of the policy till April 1998. Since then the complainant have been communicating with Life Insurance of India, but of no use. Life Insurance of India was unable to trace to which Branch their case had jurisdiction. Finally in 2002, she was told that City Branch VII, B.M. Building, Chennai 600 001 has jurisdiction over their case. She has handed over all their original papers on 28.6.02 to City Branch VII (copy of Acknowledgment enclosed.) The policy amount has not been settled to her till date. The office of the Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai sent a letter Ex.A4, dt. 24.6.05 to the 1st opposite party stated that regarding the policy No.77112190 on the life of late N. Balakrishna Naidu issued by the Asean Assurance Company Limited, the claimant under the above policy had informed that the papers pertaining to the above claim were submitted by her to the 2nd opposite party on 28.6.02 under an acknowledgement, the 2nd opposite party to urgently act and informed the present position. The copy of the above letter is also communicated to the complainant. The complainant again sent a letter Ex.A5, dt.23.10.05 to the Assistant Secretary, Office of Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai about the settlement of claim. Finally, the office of Insurance Ombudsman has sent a reply letter Ex.A7, dt. 12.12.05 to the complainant stated that on scrutiny of the papers they find that the life assured died on 5.6.76. The complainant had claimed the policy monies in April 1998. So, they will not be in a position to entertain her compliant since it is “time-barred” since more than 24 years have elapsed from the date of death. Thereafter, the complainant has sent a legal notice Ex.A8, dt. 9.7.06 to the 1st and 2nd opposite parties stated that after the death of life assured N. Balakrishna Naidu, the complainant has no knowledge about the policy taken by her husband till 1998 and opposite parties have also not issued any intimation to the complainant’s husband’s policy regarding the maturity of the policy. The opposite parties did not sent any reply to the complainant. The 3rd opposite party has stated in his proof affidavit that they have received a legal notice from the complainant but not reply has been given since Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai had already conveyed as that the claim is time barred and not in a position to entertain the complaint. 9. The complainant has stated in her proof affidavit that due to the opposite parties deficiency of service to the policy holder, just like the complainant, the opposite parties are unable to trace to which branch would deal her policy matter. Finally in the year 2002 the opposite parties have told that City Branch VII, B.M. Building, Chennai namely 2nd opposite party has jurisdiction over her claim. As per the direction of the 2nd opposite party, the complainant handed over the original policy, change of nomination, nomination endorsement and death certificate of N. Balakrishna Naidu to the 2nd opposite party on 28.6.02. From the perusal of acknowledgment Ex.A2, dt. 28.6.02 issued by the 2nd opposite party it is seen that the 2nd opposite party received the original policy. It is admitted fact that after receiving the above policy there is no reply from the 2nd opposite party to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant has lodged a complaint before the Assistant Secretary, Office of Insurance Ombudsman, Chennai – 18 on 15.6.05. Then, the complainant issued legal notice Ex.A8 to the opposite parties on 9.7.06, but the opposite parties did not send any reply to the complainant. Thereafter this complaint filed before this Forum on 17.5.07 within time. Therefore the contention of the opposite parties that they will not be in a position to entertain her complaint since it is time barred and the complaint not filed within two years is not acceptable. Hence we answer this point (a) in favour of the complainant herein. 10. POINT No. (b): It is admitted fact that the opposite parties have not denied the contention of the complainant that the complainant has no knowledge about the policy taken by her husband till 1998 and the opposite parties have also not issued any intimation to the complainant’s husband’s policy regarding the maturity of the policy or to claim the arrears of the policy due if any by her husband. The opposite parties have also admitted that Mrs. Asian Assurance Company Limited was taken over by the opposite parties Life Insurance Corporation of India and the new policy number of assured N. Balakrishna Naidu assigned as 7712190. As per the policy conditions the opposite parties are bound and duty to intimate the maturity of the policy to the concern policy holder or his nominee as per their record and settle the matter immediately after the maturity of the policy. But in this case, after the date of maturity of policy the opposite parties did not send any intimation or any other communication to the policy holder or his nominee for amicable settlement. Therefore it is clear that the delay in non communication of the policy maturity and other details in time is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 11. Hence taking into all the above facts into consideration from the contention of the complaint and the counter, as well as proof affidavit of both the parties and from the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A11, we have come to the conclusion that the complaint filed by the complainant is not barred by limitation and also the complainant herein has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties herein. Hence, we answer this point (b) in favour of the complainant herein. 12. POINT NO. c): In view of our findings on the point No. (a) & (b) since, we have come to the conclusion that the complaint filed by the complainant is not barred by limitation and the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties herein. We have also come to the conclusion that the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay the Insurance Policy matured amount under Ex.A1 and the new policy number assigned by the opposite parties as 7712190 with accrued interest from 24.11.79 till the date of payment to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as damages for the mental agony, loss and hardship due to deficiency in service on their part. 13. In the result, this complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay the Insurance Policy matured amount under Ex.A1 and the new policy number assigned by the opposite parties as 7712190 with accrued interest from 24.11.79 till the date of payment to the complainant. 2 They are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as damages for the mental agony, loss and hardship due to deficiency in service on their part. 3. and also to a pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards the cost of this complaint. The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay the above said amounts within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant is also entitled to interest on the above said sum @ 9% p.a from the date of default till the date of payment. Dictated to the Steno-typist and transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by the President, in Open Forum, this the 11th day of May 2011. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. Complainant’s Exhibits: Ex.A1- -- - X-copy of Asian Assurance company Schedule. Ex.A2- 28.6.02 - X-copy of the Acknowledgement by 1st opposite party. Ex.A3- 15.6.05 - Letter send to the complainant. Ex.A4- 24.6.05 - X-copy of reply by the Insurance Ombudsman filed on behalf of the Complainant. Ex.A5- 23.10.05 - Reminder letter send by the complainant. Ex.A6- 3.11.05 - Reply by the opposite party. Ex.A7- 12.12.05 - Letter sent by the Insurance Ombudsman. Ex.A8- 9.7.06 - C-copy of lawyer notice. Ex.A9- -- - Postal Ack. Card. Ex.A10- -- - Postal Ack Card. Ex.A11- -- - Postal Ack. Card. Opposite parties’ Exhibits: ..Nill.. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
| | [ Hon'ble Tmt G.Malarvizhi, B.E] MEMBER[ Hon'ble Thiru A.Sampath, B.A., B.L] PRESIDENT[ Hon'ble Tr K.Dhayalamurthy, Bsc] MEMBER | |
