By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
The case is that, the son of complainant has taken a group insurance policy from respondent and paid Rs.635/- as premium. The period of insurance was from 10.5.1999 to 9.5.2009. As per the policy the legal heirs are entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/-. On 24.1.2003 the insured was died in a motor accident and Kunnamkulam Police has registered a crime. The insured was unmarried and complainant is the only legal heir. After the death of the insured the complainant approached the respondent and given claim form along with documents. On 28.4.2003 one postal cover received by complainant in the name of deceased in which there was cheque of Rs.34/- was enclosed. It is intimated that the policy was cancelled. This act of respondent is deficiency in service. The complainant is entitled to get the policy amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest. Hence the complaint.
2. The version is filed to the effect that the respondent denies the valid policy in the name of deceased insured for the period 24.1.03 and the complainant is not covered by the policy. The complaint is barred by limitation. The complaint was not filed within two years of the alleged accident. Hence dismiss.
3. The points for consideration are that:
(1) Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
(2) Whether there was any deficiency in service from respondent?
(3) If so, reliefs and costs.
4. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. P1 to P4.
5. Points: The complaint is filed by the mother of deceased insured to get the death claim of insured from the respondent insurance company. It is the case that the son of complainant was a group insurance policy holder of respondent and during the valid period of the policy he was died out of a road traffic accident and complainant is entitled to get the death claim amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest. The only contention raised by respondent is that there was no valid policy in the name of deceased Aneesh.
6. In the counter the respondent stated that the complaint is barred by limitation. The complaint was not filed within two years of the alleged accident. The complainant stated in the complaint that she had entrusted the documents along with cheque to one Rajesh, but he failed to initiate any legal action and returned the file on 27.4.06 by stating that the documents were lost except the cheque. So the complainant would say that there occurred 380 days delay for filing the complaint and it should be condoned.
7. The complainant has submitted Exts. P1 to P4 documents and there is no document showing the rejection of claim. But it is the case of complainant that the respondent returned the documents along with Ext. P1 cheque. So it should be considered that the rejection of claim was on the cheque date of 1.5.03. So the complaint should be filed within two years from 1.5.03. There are no other documents on the part of complainant to prove the same. At the same time the respondent submitted no evidence. As per Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act the complaint should be filed within two years from the date of cause of action. But this complaint is filed only on 29.5.06 and there is delay of more than one year. There is no separate application to condone delay under Section 24A(2) of the Act. It is stated in the complaint that there is a delay of 380 days and it should be condoned, but this is not sufficient. A separate application is essential. So in this circumstance the complaint is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation.
8. The complainant is examined as PW1 and it is her case that as per the policy she is entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/- as the death claim. She stated in the complaint that the period of the policy was from 19.5.1999 to 9.5.2009. But she did not produce any policy document even if the respondent denies the validity of the policy. From where she has got the information is unaware. The case of respondent is that there is no valid policy in the name of complainant. There is not any evidence to show the existence of the policy in favour of deceased son. It is the case of PW1 that the documents were entrusted with the respondent. It is true that no evidence is adduced by respondent. But it is the duty of PW1 to request the Forum to call for documents from the company. It is not done. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent. In this aspect also the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
9. In the result the complaint stands dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 21st day of January 2013.
