PRESENT SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT

Wednesday, 29^th July 2010

 

S. Sathyanarayana Reddy,

S/o Aswartha Reddy @ Chinna Aswartha Reddy,

Hindu, Major, Nidanavada Village, Singanamala Mandal,

Anantapur District.                                                                       ….. Complainant.

Vs.

 

1) The Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

2)   The Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General

                                                                                                                                     

 

This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 23-7-2010 in the presence of Sri B. Vijaya Kumar and Sri V. Raja Sekhar, Advocates, Anantapur for complainant and Sri D. Rajasekhar Reddy, Advocate for R1 and R2 called absent and set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-

 

 

 

1.                Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

 

2.                The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The complainant is the resident of Nidanavada Village, Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapur District. One S. Anjana Reddy @ Ramanjula Reddy, S/o Chinna Aswartha Reddy @ Aswartha Reddy had a Group Personal Accident Policy No. 4012/0000/984 vide certificate No. 4012/0000984/00191 under “we help society” group valid from 5-4-2006 to 4-5-2007 by paying Rs. 50/- towards premium. Anjana Reddy @ Ramanjula Reddy died on 13-4-2006 at Government Hospital, Anantapur due to snake bite. The complainant as a nominee informed the death to the opposite parties and requested to pay insured amount of Rs. 1, 00,000/- under the policy of Anjana Reddy. The opposite parties failed to pay the amount. Thus the complainant got issued a notice on 3-4-2007 to the opposite parties. But there was no reply.   Therefore, the complaint was filed for Rs. 1, 00,000/- towards insured amount with interest and          Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and costs. 

 

3.                The R1 filed a counter denied the death of S. Anjana Reddy @ Ramanjula Reddy due to snake bite on 13-4-2006 and it was a natural death. Thus the complainant was not entitled to the policy amount of Rs. 1, 00,000/- as a nominee of the deceased. It was not correct that the complainant was entitled to the policy amount, as nominee of the deceased. The complainant had not submitted any record to show that the deceased died due to snake bite. The Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with costs. 

 

4.                On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. 

i.                   Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties?

ii.                 Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

iii.              To what relief?

 

5.                On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A4 were marked and no documents were marked and filed on behalf of the opposite parties.  

 

 

6.                Point No. 1& 2.   Originally the complaint was filed before the District Consumer Forum, Ananthapur and it was registered as C.C. No. 131/2007. Subsequently, it was transferred to the District Consumer Forum, Kadapa Y.S.R District, as per proceedings ROC No. 2/2010/APSCDRC/Admn., dt. 5-2-2010 of the Registrar, A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad and the same was received on 17-4-2010.   After receipt of the case bundle, it was renumbered and notice was issued to both parties and posted the case on 21-5-2010.   Notices were served to both parties and the complainant was called absent and had no representation. On perusal of the postal acknowledgement the signature of the complainant was different to his signature on the complaint. Therefore, fresh notice was ordered and was issued and served to the complainant. Even, then he was called absent and had no representation on 16-6-2010.   Again the notice was issued and posted the case on 9-7-2010. It was served and he was called absent on   20-7-2010 the date of adjournment of the case. But the R1 was getting ready for hearing on 20-7-2010. However, in the interest of justice the documents filed by the complainant were marked as Ex. A1 to A4. The R2 was already set exparte on  7-1-2008 before District Consumer Forum, Ananthapur. Therefore, the R1 was only contesting opposite party in the case. 

 

7.                The complainant was a resident of Nidanavada Village, Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapur District.  The complaint at para – 2, disclosed that the brother of the complainant was S. Anjana Reddy @ Ramanjula Reddy, S/o Chinna Aswartha Reddy @ Aswartha Reddy. S. Anjana Reddy had a Group Personal Accident Policy for Rs. 1,00,000/- vide policy No. 4012/0000984 under “we help society” group valid from 5-4-2006 to 4-5-2007. Ex. A1 was policy certificate. In Ex. A1 it was not mentioned that Anjana Reddy was called with another name as Ramanjula Reddy. There was no proper proof that S. Anjana Reddy and Ramanjula Reddy were one and same with different names.  There was no other relevant documents to prove the same.   While so Anjana Reddy as per complaint, died due to snake bite on                13-4-2006 at Govt. Hospital, Anantapur. Ex. A2 was Photostat copy of cause of death certificate issued by Govt. General Hospital, Ananthapur with patient name as Ramanjula Reddy on 13-4-2006 at 6.40 p.m as inpatient No. 9713 in ward AMC. The official seal of the Govt. General Hospital, Ananthapur to the date of issue by the doctor was absent in Ex. A2. So it was created document.If really Anjana Reddy was admitted in the hospital as inpatient and died due to snake bite, there was no necessity to the Govt. General Hospital, Ananthapur to mention the name of the patient as Ramanjula Reddy instead of Anjana Reddy. Generally the attendants of the patient would give the original name before the hospital authorities or before the Official authorities for getting his certificates.   Ramanjula Reddy was not the original name to Anjana Reddy. So, as discussed earlier the death certificate due to snake bite of Anjana Reddy was not produced and in stead of it the death certificate of another person Ramanjula Reddy was filed. Therefore, there was no proper documentary proof that Anjana Reddy died due to snake bite.   The doctor had no authority to issue certificate like Ex.A2. The case sheet was not filed. So it was natural death. The complainant got issued a notice to the R1 to pay the insured amount of Anjana Reddy to him. The office copy of the notice was Ex.A3.  Ex. A4 was acknowledgement. There was no proof when the claim application was submitted and when it was repudiated.   It was silent. So there was no claim before the respondents.   Therefore, there are no merits in the case and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the respondents. Hence, the points are answered accordingly. 

 

8.                Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 29^th July 2010

 

 

 

 

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant    NIL                                                  For Respondent :     NIL

Exhibits marked for Complainant : -  

 

 

Ex. A1         Policy copy issued by ICICI Lombard General Insurance in favour of the

Ex. A2         P/c of cause of death certificate issued by Civil Asst. Surgeon, Govt. General Hospital, Anantapur.

Ex. A3         Office copy of legal notice from complainant’s advocate to R1, dt. 3-4-07.

Ex. A4         Postal Acknowledgement card.

 

Exhibits marked for Respondent: -  

 

 

1)     Sri B. Vijayakumar and Sri V. Rajasekhar, Advocate, Ananthapur for complainant.

2)     Sri D. Rajasekhar Reddy, Advocate for R2.

2) Copy was dispatched on      :

3) Copy of delivered to parties :