Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/67/11

Panuganti Chittemma W/o Venkat Swamy, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The President, Chennapuraopally Grama Ikya Sahakara Sangam Ltd., and 3 others - Opp.Party(s)

Sri M. Chennaiah Goud,

29 Jul 2011

ORDER

  BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Friday, the 29^th day of July, 2011 

                                                      Present:- Sri P. Sridhara Rao, B.Sc., LL.B., President

                                                                      Sri A. Veerupakshi, B.A., LL.B., Member        

      Smt.D.Nirmala, B.Com., LL.B.,Member

C.C.NO. 67  Of   2011

Between:-

Panuganti Chittemma W/o Venkat Swamy, aged 33 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No.2-3, Chennapuraopally village, Peddakothapally Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.                                                                             … Complainant

And

1. The President, Chennapuraopally Grama Ikya Sahakara Sangam Ltd.,  

    Chennapuraopally village, Peddakothapally Mandal, Mahabubnagar  

    District.

2. The Project Director, D.R.D.A., T.T.D.C., Bandameedipally village,    

    Mahabubnagar Mandal and District.

3. The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation (P&GS), Divisional  

    Office, “Jeevan Prakash” 5-9-21, Secretariat Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad.   

4. The District Collector, Mahabubnagar.

                                                                                                                             … Opposite Parties

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 19-7-2011 in the presence of Sri M. Chennaiah Goud, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant and Sri Lakshmikantha Rao, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the  OP-3, and the OPs.1, 2 and 4 having been set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum made the following:   

O R D E R

  (Smt.D.Nirmala, Member)

1.  This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite parties to pay sum amount of Rs.30,000/- for policy amount along with interest @ 36% p.a. from date of death of the information of deceased i.e., 29-9-2010 till the realization, and to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and for deficiency of service and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the complaint.   

2. The averments of the complaint in brief are that:- The husband of the complainant namely Panuganti Venkat Swamy was member in OP-1 since 2008. The Government of A.P. introduced life insurance i.e., LIC (P&GS) Indira Jeevitha Bheema Pathakam (Aam Admi Bheema Yojana) insurance policy for members and the sum assured of Rs.30,000/- for natural death and Rs.75,000/- for accidental death.  He paid insurance premium from 2008 and his membership No.3333 and LIC I.D.No.2661868 covering from 1-4-2010 to 31-3-2011 and his ration card No.WAP14480500221.  He paid regularly premium through OP-1.  The complainant further stated that her husband died on 29-9-2010 due to heart failure and she is the nominee in the said scheme.  Thereupon, the complainant approached the OP-1 and submitted required documents i.e., death certificate, legal heir certificate to claim the insurance benefits. The OP-1 sent the claim form along with resolution dated 7-12-2010 to OP-3.  The opposite parties not settled the claim till today.  The complainant approached the opposite parties number of times but the opposite parties are stated many pretext today or tomorrow but till date they are not settled. The opposite parties receiving the premium amount from complainant’s husband but not paid and the opposite parties misused the funds.  The acts of the opposite parties amount to deficiency of service.   Thus the present complaint is filed for the aforesaid relief.    

3.  The opposite party No.3 filed counter denying the averments and stated that it is true that Panuganti Venkat Swamy is a member of OP-1 in Aam Admi Bheema Yojana Scheme for a period of 1-4-2001 to 31-3-2009 and from 1-4-2009 to 31-3-2010 and the nominee Smt. Chittemma. This opposite party further stated that the husband of the complainant has renewed the policy for the year 1-4-2010 to 31-3-2011 is not correct.  As a matter of fact that this opposite party did not receive the renewal premium for the account of husband of the complainant, hence not covered. The letter dated 18-5-2011 of Zilla Mahila Samakya it is stated that Sri Panuganti Venkat Swamy was the member for the year 2008-2009 and 2009-10.   In the year 2010-11 his name was not renewed, as such his name was not updated online. The resolution of the opposite party Sangam dated  7-12-2010 without payment of premium to the LIC does not hold any kind of liability to pay the benefits to the complainant. There is no negligence, defective or deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed without costs.    

4.  The opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 4 remained exparte.

5. Thereupon the complainant in support of her claim filed her affidavit evidence and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7.  On the other hand, the OP-3 in support of his contentions filed his affidavit evidence and got marked  Ex.B-1 on his behalf.   

6.  The points for determination now are: 

1.  Whether is there any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged?
2.  Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for by her? 

    (iii)  To what effect? 

7. The undisputed facts of the case are that the husband of the complainant namely Panuganti Venkat Swamy is a member of OP-1 in Aam Admi Bheema Yojana Scheme for the period 1-4-2008 to 31-3-2009 and from  1-4-2009 to 31-3-2010 and his LIC ID No.2661868. The said Panuganti Venkat Swamy died on 29-9-2010 and his nominee is Smt. Chittemma.  

8. Point Nos.1 and 2:- It is the case of the complainant that her husband became a member of O.P.No.1 in the scheme introduced by the Government of A.P. life insurance i.e., LIC (P&GS) Indira Jeevitha Bheema Pathakam (Aam Admi Bheema Yojana) insurance policy members and the sum assured of Rs.30,000/- for natural death and Rs.75,000/- for accidental death. She further stated that her husband died on 29-9-2010 due to heart failure and she is the nominee in the said scheme. She approached the OP-1 and submitted required documents to get the claim insurance benefits and the OP-1 sent the claim form along with resolution dated 7-12-2010 to OPs.2 and 3.  But the OPs.2 and 3 not settled the claim till today. There is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence the present complaint is filed.  On this aspect O.P.s 1, 2 and 4 being remained exparte the O.P.No.3 only contested matter and contended that, the opposite party has not received the premium, so the question of getting any insurance benefit does not arise. He further contended that the husband of the complainant was member for the year 2008-09 and 2009-10.  In the year 2010-11 his name was not renewed, as such his name was not updated online.   Hence the question of payment insurance benefit does not arise.

9.  Now the question that arises for consideration is whether complainant by way of filing the documents and oral evidence established her case?

10. The complainant in support her case relied upon Exs.A-1 to A-7. The recitals of Exs.A-5 and A-6 the original receipts of (Indira Jeevitha Bheema Pathakam) clearly goes to show that the husband of the complainant is member of Indira Jeevitha Bheema Pathakam. As per Exs.A-5 and A-6 the said scheme (AABY) effected from 1-4-2008 and closed on 31-3-2010.  But the case of the complainant is that her husband died on 29-9-2010 and she submitted death certificate and legal heir certificate to OP-1 to get claim of insurance benefits. In turn, OP-1 sent claim forms and resolution dated  7-12-2010. On this aspect it is the contention of the learned standing counsel for OP-3 that the letter dated 18-5-2011 which is marked as ExB1 here in clearly shows that   the deceased Panuganti Venkat Swamy was the member for the year 2008-09 and 2009-10.  In the year 2010-11 his name was not renewed. As such his name was not updated on line. Hence the complainant is not entitled any insurance benefits. He also further urged that the resolution of OP Sangam dated 7-12-2010 without payment of premium to the LIC does not hold any kind of liability to pay any insurance benefits to the complainant.  The recitals of Ex.B-1 clearly goes to show that the husband of the complainant having membership upto 2009-10 and for the year  2010-11 his renewal was not updated in online.  The recitals of Exs.A-5, A-6 and B-1 clearly goes to show that the deceased Panuganti Venkat Swamy membership in AABY scheme was closed on 31-3-2010.  Hence we are of the opinion that the deceased Panuganti Venkat Swamy died on 29-9-2010 and at the date of death his membership in AABY Scheme is not in force. As rightly contended by OP-3, and the material available on record the complainant failed to establish that his policy was renewed and it was in force at the time of his death, Therefore we find that there is some truth in the contention of OP-3 and the deceased Panuganti Venkat Swamy did not have the membership in the AABY Scheme at the time of his death. Under such circumstances, the complainant cannot take protection under the plea of deficiency of service against this opposite party.  So also she cannot take a plea of deficiency of service against OPs.1, 2 and 4 as no consideration paid at the relevant time to Ops 1, 2 and 4 by the complainant.  As such the free services rendered if any by the ops 1, 2, and 4 does not make them liable for the deficiency of service on their part also.  Hence, for the reasons stated supra, we find that the complainant failed to establish the ground of deficiency of service against the opposite parties and the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for by her and the complaint is liable to be dismissed without costs.   Both the points are answered accordingly in favour of the opposite parties and against the complainant.                 

11. Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to the costs.   

        Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 29^th day of July, 2011.    

 

                                                            I agree                               I agree             

 

 MEMBER                                MEMBER                           PRESIDENT                      

   Appendix of evidence

      List of Witness examined

On behalf of Complainant:                          On behalf of Opposite Parties:   

- Nil -                                                                   - Nil -           

List of documents marked:-

On behalf of Complainant:-    

Ex.A-1: Original Receipt.

Ex.A-2: Original Receipt cum Policy Certificate.

Ex.A-3: Photostat copy of Household Card.

Ex.A-4: Photostat copy of Death Certificate, dt.4.12.2010.

Ex.A-5: Original Receipt of Policy.

Ex.A-6: Original Receipt of Policy.  

Ex.A-7: Photostat copy of Letter, dt.7.12.2010.

     On behalf of OP-3.:                  

Ex.B-1: Photostat copy of Letter, dt.18.5.2011.  

                                                                  

                                                                                                PRESIDENT                                                                                                                                                                                              

Copy to:-

1. Sri M. Chennaiah Goud, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant.

2. Sri Lakshmikantha Rao, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for OP-3.

3. The President, Chennapuraopally Grama Ikya Sahakara Sangam Ltd., 

    Chennapuraopally village, Peddakothapally Mandal, Mahabubnagar

    District.  (OP-1)

4. The Project Director, D.R.D.A., T.T.D.C., Bandameedipally village,   

    Mahabubnagar Mandal and District. (OP-2)

5. The District Collector, Mahabubnagar.  (OP-4)