Date of filing:18.05.2012
Date of disposal:08.09.2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., President (FAC)
Smt. M.Sreelatha, B.A.,B.L., Lady Member
Monday, the 8th day of September, 2014
C.C.No.23/2012
Between:
G.Venkata Ramudu,
S/o G.Pedda Venkatesu,
Athriralladinne Village,
Peddapappur Mandal,
Ananthapuramu District. … Complainant
Vs.
1. The Secretary,
Yadiki Primary Agriculture Co-operative Credit Society,
Yadiki Village and Mandal,
Ananthapuramu District.
2. The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited,
D.No.15/130, Subash Road,
Ananthapuramu. … Opposite Parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri R.Yerri Swamy, Advocate for the complainant and the 1st Opposite Party called absent and set exparte and Sri A.G.Neelakanta Reddy, Advocate for the 2nd Opposite Party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, President (FAC): - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 & 2 claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- toward two insurance policies amount Rs.40,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenditure.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: - The complainant’s wife late G.Adilakshmi had obtained crop loan of Rs.29,000/- during her life time from the 1st opposite party, the 1st opposite party had taken insurance policy on behalf of the their lonees by paying premium to 2nd opposite party under Janatha Personal Accident Policy and the complainant’s wife is also a member in Kishan Credit Card Scheme Policy which is issued by the 2nd opposite party. Subsequently on 10.02.2011 the complainant’s wife died due to snake bite. After death of his wife the complainant submitted claim forms to 2nd opposite party through 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party repudiated the claim stating that the claim was closed due to none receipt of documents inspite of reminder s to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party. Another policy bearing No.051004/47/10/43/00001119 was also repudiated stating that the claim file was closed as no claim as the insured did not submit viscera report from forensic lab. The complainant submitted that all relevant records were submitted to 2nd opposite party through 1st opposite party but without considering the said records the 2nd opposite party repudiated the claim which is nothing but deficiency of service. The complainant submitted that the postmortem report of the deceased which clearly reveals that the deceased died due to snake bite. The 2nd opposite party has insisted for viscera report from Forensic Lab even after submitting the postmortem report which is meaningless and unjust and thereby caused deficiency of service to the complainant for which the opposite parties are liable jointly and severally as claimed by the complainant.
3. The 1st Opposite Party called absent and set exparte.
4. The 2nd opposite party filed counter stating that all the allegations made in the complaint are neither true nor correct, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The 2nd opposite party submitted that the deceased die due to alleged snake bite on 10.02.2011 is absolutely false and it is a make believe affair, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The 2nd opposite party submitted that the complainant is put to strict proof that he is the nominee under the said policy of insurance and that he is the only legal heir to claim compensation for the alleged death of the decease due to snake bite under the said policy of insurance. Further the 2nd opposite party submitted that the deceased did not die due to alleged snake bite on 10.02.20111 but she died due to serious pre-existing diseases and other ailments of which she had been suffering long prior to the date of alleged incident and as such the opposite party company is not liable to pay any compensation under the said policy of insurance. Further the 2nd opposite party submitted that all the documents filed by the complainant are nothing but created in collusion with the concerned personnel for the purpose of claiming compensation under the said policy. Further the 2nd opposite party submitted that the complainant has not submitted the Forensic Laboratory Report since the alleged death is due to alleged snake bite and as per the memorandum of understanding and as per the terms and conditions of the said policies of insurance, the said documents are required in case of death for processing the claim. Further the 2nd opposite party submitted on repeated requests by the 2nd opposite party the complainant did not submit the necessary documents. The complainant has failed to comply to fulfil the necessary requirement of the opposite parties. Hence the complainant has grossly violated the terms and conditions of the said policy. Further the 2nd opposite party submitted that there was a delay in giving intimation to the opposite parties about the death of the deceased due to alleged snake bite which is a violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Further the 2nd opposite party submitted that the complainant is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties to the proceedings as the insured M/s The Anantapur District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Anantapur is not added as a party to the proceedings and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed on that ground.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2?
ii) To what relief?
6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant has filed his evidence on affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A6 documents. On behalf of the 2nd opposite party, the 2nd opposite party filed evidence on affidavit and marked Ex.B1 to B7 documents.
7. Heard both sides
8. POINT NO 1:- The counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant is the husband of the deceased G.Adilakshmi who has obtained a crop loan of Rs.29,000/- during her life time from the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party has taken insurance policy on behalf of the loanees by paying premium insuring their lives under Janatha Personal Accident Policy and another policy under Kishan Credit Card Scheme Policy. The counsel for complainant submitted that the wife of the complainant died on 10.02.2011 due to snake bite and after her death the complainant submitted claim forms to 2nd opposite party through 1st opposite party. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the said claim was repudiated by the 2nd opposite party unilaterally stating that the claim was closed due to none receipt of documents inspite of reminders to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party on 29.11.2011. And another claim was also repudiated stating that they are closing the claim as no claim as the claimant had not submitted the viscera report of the deceased.
9. The counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant submitted all relevant records with regard to the cause of death to the opposite party but with considering the said documents the 2nd opposite party has repudiated the claims of the complainant arbitrarily. Further the counsel for the complainant argued that the postmortem report of the deceased clearly shows that the deceased died due to snake bite. Inspite of the said report the opposite parties have insisted for Forensic laboratory report without any reason in order to avoid paying compensation to the claimant under the policy. Further the counsel for the complainant argued that the 2nd opposite party has repudiated the two claims of the complainant arbitrarily and caused deficiency of service. Hence the opposite parties are liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards insurance sum assured under the policies and Rs.40,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenditure.
10. The counsel for the 2nd opposite party submitted that there was abnormal delay of four months in giving intimation to the opposite party with regard to the alleged incident. The counsel for 2nd opposite party submitted that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy as it is the primary duty of the complainant to inform the opposite party with regard to the alleged incident within one month from the date of the incident. Hence, the 2nd opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation under the policies. The counsel for the 2nd opposite party submitted that it is the complainant who reported to the police to investigate but in the report the complainant has never stated that he took his wife to Government Hospital but taken her to a quack doctor and it is that person who had informed the complainant that his wife was bitten by a snake and gave some and sent them back as per Ex.A1. The counsel for 2nd opposite party submitted that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the above ground. And further submitted that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for none-joinder of necessary parties as it is M/s The Anantapur District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Anantapur who has entered into a contract of insurance with the 2nd opposite party is a necessary party who has taken the policy on behalf of the deceased. The counsel for 2nd opposite party argued that with regard to the Kishan Credit Card Scheme Policy bearing No.051004/47/10/43/0000119 the complainant has to prove that he is the nominee of the complainant and the he is only legal heir to claim the sum assured. The counsel for the 2nd opposite party argued that the complainant has not summited the necessary documents to process the claim and the 2nd opposite party has sent number of reminders to the complainant to submit the necessary documents for which the complainant has not complied. Hence the said policies were repudiated for none submission of necessary documents with regard to the Kishan Credit Card Scheme Policy bearing g No.051004/47/10/43/0000119 and another policy was repudiated for non-submission of viscera report to the Janatha Personal Accident Policy bearing No.051004/47/09/61/00001720.
11. Further the counsel for the 2nd opposite party submitted that it is the primary duty of the claimant to inform the alleged incident within the stipulated time as per the terms and conditions of the policy and in the instant case the complainant has not intimated the opposite party within the stipulated time and there was a delay of four months which is very much fatal to the claim. Further the counsel for the 2nd opposite party has argued that inspite of reminders to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party to submit the necessary documents he had failed to submit the same. Hence the claims were closed due to non-submission of necessary documents. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
12. After hearing the arguments of both sides and perusing the documents the plea taken by the complainant is that the complainant’s wife died due to snake bite which is established in the postmortem report. And the 2nd opposite party without considering the said document has unilaterally repudiated the claim of the complainant cannot be considered because admittedly the complainant in his complaint to the police which is marked as Ex.A1 he clearly mentioned that it is only after the mention by the quack Doctor with the complainant that his wife was bitten by snake he came to know that his wife was bitten by a snake and she was never taken to Government Hospital for treatment. Further argument by the 2nd opposite party is considered as there was a delay of four months in giving intimation to the opposite parties with regard to the alleged incident which is very much fatal to the claim as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Further considering the argument of the 2nd opposite party that M/s The Anantapur District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Anantapur is a necessary party as The Anantapur District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Anantapur is the one who has entered into a contract of insurance with the 2nd opposite party on behalf of its loanees. As the complainant has not made him a party the complaint is liable to be dismissed for none joinder of necessary parties because it is the M/s The Anantapur District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Anantapur which has taken the policy with the opposite party on behalf of the deceased, hence M/s The Anantapur District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Anantapur is a necessary party in the present case. As per the terms and conditions of the policies in order to process a claim the claimant should produce the necessary documents as required by the opposite party. In the present case the complainant has not complied with the necessary documents to 2nd opposite party. Hence the claim of the complainant was repudiated and even after giving reminders to the complainant to submit necessary documents the complainant has failed to submit the same. Though postmortem report shows that the complainant’s wife died due to snake bite but due to the abnormal delay in intimating to opposite party and for none joinder of necessary parties the complaint is liable to be dismissed. In view of the above observation we are of the opinion that the complaint is liable to dismissed without costs.
13. In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 8th day of September, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
NIL
ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTY
-NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 Attested copy of FIR in crime No.04/2011 of Sub-inspector of Police,
Muchukota.
Ex.A2 Attested copy of inquest in crime No.04/2011 relating to the
deceased G.Adilakshmi.
Ex.A3 Attested copy of postmortem dt.10.02.2011 relating to the
deceased G.Adilakshmi.
Ex.A4 . Office copy of the legal notice dt.10.01.2012 got issued by the
complainant to the opposite parties.
Ex.A5 . Reply notice dt.08.02.2012 issued by the complainant to the
counsel for the complainant.
Ex.A6. Proceedings of the sub- divisional Police Officer, Tadipatri sub-
division dt.17.03.2011
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE 2nd OPPOSITE PARTY
Ex.B1 Photo copy of the Kishan Credit Card Scheme Insurance Policy
bearing No.051004/47/10/43/00001119.
Ex.B2 Certified copy of Group Janatha Personal Accident Policy bearing
No.051004/47/09/61/00001720.
Ex.B3 Original claim intimation letter dt.05.06.2011.
Ex.B4 Reply legal notice dt.08.02.2012 issued by the 2nd opposite party to
the counsel for the complainant.
Ex.B5. Repudiation letter dt.29.11.2011issued by the 2nd opposite party to
the 1st opposite party.
Ex.B6 Repudiation letter dt.19.12.2011 issued by the 2nd opposite party
to the complainant.
Ex.B7. Served postal acknowledgment signed by the complainant.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
