BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.S.Chinnaiah,B.A.,B.L., I/c President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Friday the 23rd day of November, 2007
C.C.No. 69/07
K. Padmavathamma,W/o. Late. K. Hari Kumar Reddy,
Sunkesula Village,Kothakota (M), Kurnool District. … Complainant
Versus
The New India Assurance Company Limited,
HDCT Complex, R.S.Road, Kurnool.
… Opposite Party
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.S.V.Krishna Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool, for complainant, and Sri. P.Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate, Kurnool, for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
(As per Smt.C.Preethi, Member)
C.C.69/2007
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking a direction on opposite party to pay the assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with 18% interest, Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the complaint.
2. The gist of the complaint of the complainant is that the complainant is the wife of deceased K. Hari Kumar Reddy who insured his life under policy bearing No.611500/47/00339 (Janata Personal Accidental Insurance Policy) and nominated the complainant as his nominee. The said policy commenced from 5.10.2004 to 4.10.2009. On 10.5.2005 the policy holder died due to snake bite and was immediately taken to Kurnool for treatment where the doctor declared brought dead and cremated the deceased the next day in their village. The deceased was not referred to post mortern and no complaint was filed with police. As nominee the complainant sent a requisition to opposite party along with original policy bond and required documents to settle the claim, but the opposite party replied on 7.6.2005 to submit post mortern report. As the case was not referred to police no F.I.R and post mortern was conducted on the deceased Hari Kumar Reddy. Hence, the complainant did not submit the above documents to opposite party. The above conduct of opposite party in delaying in settling the claim of the complainant is amounting to deficiency of service. Hence, resorted to the forum for relief’s.
3. In support of her case the complainant relied on the following documents viz., (1) death certificate, (2) attested Xerox copy of panchanama, dated 10.5.2005, (3) attested Xerox copy of claim form, (4) letter dated 7.6.2005 of opposite party to complainant and (5) office copy of letter dated nil of complainant to opposite party, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of her complaint avernments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 for its appreciation in this case.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant, the opposite party appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filling written version.
5. The written version of opposite party denies the complaint as not maintainable either in law or on facts but admits the deceased K. Hari Kumar Reddy obtained an individual Janata Personal Accidental Policy from opposite party valid from 5.10.2004 to 4.10.2009 and the policy holder nominated the complainant as his nominee but denies the deceased died on 10.5.2005 due to snake bite and also submits that the complainant suppressed material facts and filed this false complaint with an ulterior motive in order to get a wrong full gain. It further submits that on reliable information it is learnt that the deceased death was not due to snake bite. To screen away the material facts the deceased was cremated the next day morning by 11.00 A.M without waiting for their relatives. Thereafter, the complainant informed the opposite party on 2.6.2005 by an anti dated letter as 10.5.2005 stating that her husband Hari Kumar Reddy died due to snake bite on 10.5.2005 and the said letter was received by opposite party on 2.6.2005 and the opposite party replied dated 7.6.2005 along with claim form to fill it and submit it with required documents, but the complainant did not submit F.I.R and post mortern report which are prime documents for settling the claim of the complainant and thereafter there was no information from the complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite party and the complainant is not entitled to any of the relief’s claimed in the complaint and seeks for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
6. In support of their case the opposite party relied on the following document viz., (1) original policy bond issued to the deceased Hari Kurmar Reddy, besides to the sworn affidavit of the opposite party in reiteration of his written version avernments and the above documents are marked as Ex.B1 for its appreciation in this case.
7. Hence the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service ?.
8. It may be said at the outset that the dispute involved in this case centers round the claim of the complainant for Rs.1 lakh insured amount and the dispute of the same is raised by the opposite party by simply putting the complainant to strictly prove the material allegations of the complainant. The material facts that emerge from the pleadings, the contends of the documents etc., are that the complainant is nominee of one K. Hari Kumar Reddy, who insured his life with opposite party under Janata Personal Accidental Insurance Policy bearing No.611500/47/00339 vide Ex.B1. The deceased K. Hari Kumar Reddy died on 10.5.2005 due to snake bite, on the claim preferred by the complainant vide Ex.A3 along with required documents the opposite party did not settle the claim but requested the complainant to produce post morten report vide Ex.A4 and the complainant produced Ex.A2 copy of panchanama dated 10.5.2005 of Sunkesla grama panchyat where in it is mentioned that the deceased K.Hari Kumar Reddy died due to snake bite.
9. The opposite party pleaded that the claim of the complainant could not settled as the complainant did not filed documents like F.I.R and post mortern report etc to strictly prove that said Hari Kumar Reddy died to snake bite. In view of the facts present in the case that the conduct of the complainant perusing her rights by filling relevant documents and her proof affidavit reiterating her claim which is just and bonafied as nominee of said Hari Kumar Reddy.
10. The main objection of the opposite party is that the complainant failed to produce FIR and post mortern report. The only proof submitted by the complainant is the letter dated 10.5.2005 (Ex.A2) issued by the sarpanch of Sunkesla (v) counter signed by the village heads, in which the cause of death was stated as snake bite. The opposite party submits that the Ex.A2 cannot be taken as conclusive proof as to the cause of death in the absence of any FIR and post mortern report, but it cannot be understood how the opposite party could require the complainant to produce FIR and post mortern report, when the policy holder did not die in any suspicious circumstances involving any crime. The complainant produced the only documentary evidence that could be produced as the facts of the present case i.e., Ex.A2. which showed that the deceased K.Hari Kumar Reddy’s death was due to snake bite only.
11. It remains to be seen in the light of the admitted facts can the Insurance Company reject the claim or escape their liability by insisting on the production of FIR and post mortern report. The learned counsel for complainant strongly submitted that the opposite party cannot insists to in view of the decision of Hon’ble State Commission reported in 2000 ALD (cons) Pg 96 between LIC of India and another Vs.Banavath Kamlee, where in it was held that when the cause of death is a snake bite but not a suspicious one obtaining FIR and other documents does not arise. As such the stand of opposite party insisting for the production of such documents is held to be illegal and not valid and untenable and the claim of the complainant is sustainable.
12. We have heard the arguments of both sides carefully gone through material made available on record and religing on the decision of Hon’ble State Commission we are of considered view that the opposite party / Insurance Company cannot escape their liability from settling the claim of the complainant. Thus, we find that the complainant is entitled to the insured amount with interest and costs. Thus, the point and found accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party.
13. In the result, in view of the discussion made above the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant the insured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of filling of this complaint i.e. 21.6.2007 till the date of payment along with costs of Rs.1,000/- within a month of receipt of this order. In default the opposite party is liable to pay the supra award amount with 12 % interest from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 23rd day of Novermber,2007.
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. Attested Xerox copy of Death Certificate.
Ex.A2. Attested Xerox copy of panchanama, dated 10.5.2005.
Ex.A3. Attested Xerox copy of claim form.
Ex.A4. Letter dated 7.6.2005 of opposite party to complainant
Ex.A5. Office copy of letter dated nil of complainant to opposite party
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Original policy bond issued to the deceased
Hari Kumar Reddy.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1. Sri.S.V.Krishna Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri.P.Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
