0 COMPLAINT FILED: 28.10.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 31st DECEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 2309/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Smt. Jayalakshmi. R.,<br /> Aged about 37 years,<br /> W/o. late C. Raju Shetty,<br /> Hotel Udupi Tiffanies,<br /> Mysore Road,<br /> Kengeri,<br /> Bangalore.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (Rameshchandra)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The New India Assurance <br /> Co. Ltd.,<br /> Divisional Office,<br /> D.O. 710600, Tarapore Towers,<br /> III Floor, 826, Anna Salai,<br /> Chennai – 600 002.<br /> Represented by the <br /> Divisional Manager.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. The New India Assurance<br /> Co. Ltd.,<br /> 2-B, Unity Building Annexe,<br /> Mission Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 027.<br /> Represented by<br /> Regional Manager.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (C.R. Ravishankar)<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to settle the insurance claim of Rs.3,00,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> The husband of the complainant C. Raju Shetty took dollars save card which covered Janatha Personal Accident insurance issued by the OP’s. OP collected the necessary premium. The sum assured payable in case of death due to accident was Rs.3,00,000/-. The said policy was inforce between 07.05.1999 to 06.05.2009. Complainant is the wife of C. Raju Shetty is the nominee under the said policy. The said C. Raju Shetty met with an accident on 02.08.2007 and succumbed to the injuries leaving behind the complainant as his heir. Thereafter complainant immediately approached the OP to settle the claim and pay the sum assured. Unfortunately OP repudiated the said claim on the ground that the policy in question has been cancelled on 01.05.2003 itself and whatever the amount payable under pro rata has been refunded to her husband long back. The said repudiation is illegal, unjust and improper. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, went in vain. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to them after the cancellation of the said policy they sent the pro rata premium to the policy holder, he acknowledged the same without any objection. Thus the policy in question came to be cancelled with effect from 01.05.2003. The refund amount is encashed by the policy holder on 23.07.2003. Under such circumstances as on the date of death of the policy holder that is 02.08.2007 the impugned policy was not at all inforce. Hence OP is not liable to honour the claim of the complainant. There is no contract of insurance subsisting as on the date of death of the policy holder. Under such circumstances there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the husband of the complainant C. Raju Shetty took the insurance policy called as Dollars Save Card from OP and the sum assured being Rs.3,00,000/-. It is also not at dispute that the said policy was valid from 07.05.1999 to 06.05.2009. Under the said policy in case of death of the policy holder due to accident OP is liable to pay the sum assured. It is also not at dispute that the complainant is the wife of the policy holder. Now the grievance of the complainant is that unfortunately her husband met with a road traffic accident and died on 02.08.2007 leaving behind the complainant as heir and she is the nominee under the policy. After the death of her husband she did made the claim to OP, but OP repudiated the said claim on the ground that the policy in question was cancelled long back on 01.05.2003 and whatever the amount that is payable is paid to the policy holder. Actually the policy holder has not received the said amount, hence she felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> 7. Of course OP has admitted the issuance of the said policy and the sum assured, etc. But the main grievance of the OP is that the policy under question has been cancelled long back and it is within the knowledge of the policy holder C. Raju Shetty. After the cancellation of the said policy on 01.05.2003 OP refunded the pro rata premium from the expiry period and that amount sent through the cheque drawn on Federal Bank is encashed by the policy holder on 23.07.2003. The documents to that effect are produced by the OP. Under such circumstances on the face of it, it appears that the policy in question is seized to be in existence and no liability lies with the OP.<br /> <br /> 8. If the policy holder was aggrieved by the cancellation of the said policy made by the OP on 01.05.2003 he would have challenged the said act of the OP. But no such steps are taken. On the other hand without any objection, protest or any demur he has received the entire refund amount. When that is so there is no contract of insurance subsisting as on the date of the so called death of the policy holder on 02.08.2007. The policy came to be cancelled in the month of May 2003, refund amount is received in July 2003, thereafter nearly 4 years the policy holder expired. What made the policy holder to keep mum without initiating any action against the OP with regard to the cancellation of the policy is not explained.<br /> <br /> 9. We find the substance in the defence raised by the OP that the claim is barred by time and there is no contract of insurance subsisting as on the date of death of the C. Raju Shetty the husband of the complainant. We find the complaint is devoid of merit. There is no proof of deficiency in service. As the so called policy was not inforce and subsisting as on the date of death of the policy holder OP is not liable to pay the sum assured as claimed by the complainant. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 31st day of December 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />