Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/126/2013

Smt Rapuru Nagabhushanamma, D/o. Late Ragamma and Ramanaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

The senior Divisional manager L.I.C of India City Branch -1 - Opp.Party(s)

C.P.Suresh

19 Sep 2017

ORDER

Date of filing       :  28-11-2013

Date of Disposal :  19-09-2017

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

           :: NELLORE ::

                                                       

Tuesday, this the 19th day of   SEPTEMBER, 2017.

 

            Quorum: Sri Sk.Mohd.Ismail, M.A., LL.B.., President

                           Sri K.Umamaheswara Rao, M.A., B.L., Member 

                   

C.C.No.126/2013        

 

Smt.Rapuru Nagabhushanamma,

Aged 35 years, Hindu,

D/o.Late Ragamma and Ramanaiah,

Golagamudi,

Near Brahmamgari Mattam,

Venkatachalam (M),Nellore (Dt.) A.P.                              …  Complainant

 

                      Vs.

                                                                            

The Senior Divisional Manager,

LIC of India, City Branch – 1, P.B.No.6,

Divisional Office,

“Jeevan Prakash”,

Dargamitta,

Nellore- 524 003.                                                            … Opposite party

 

This matter coming on 12-09-2017 before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri C.P.Suresh, Advocate for the complainant and Sri D.V.R.Kiran Kumar, Advocate for the opposite party and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

ORDER                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   (By Sri K.Umamaheswara Rao, M.A., B.L., Member)

                   

 

1.     The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, prays the Hon’ble Forum to direct the opposite party to pay  policy amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @12%p.a. from 29-01-2012 till the date of realization, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of their illegal repudiation and harassment towards the complainant and to pay  Rs.5,000/- towards costs.

 

2.  The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:

 

  The complainant submits that one Rapuru Ragamma, who is the mother of complainant has taken a policy bearing no.843290639 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and the complainant shown as the nominee. The yearly payable premium amount is Rs.5,073/- and the date of maturity date is  10-11-2024. During her life time, the complainant’s mother paid three yearly premiums to the opposite party on 10-11-2009, 10-11-2010 and     10-11-2011 respectively. Subsequently, the complainant mother died on    29-01-2012 for which, the complainant sent claim application to the opposite party.  But the opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant relinquished the claim,  but the same is incorrect and the complainant never given such kind of declaration to the opposite party at any point of time.  Further, the complainant submits that she affixed her thumb impression under the impression that opposite party is going to handover the policy amount to the complainant but she never gave declaration to relinquish the policy amount.   The complainant submits that the opposite party repudiated the claim on 03-08-2013 without assigning any valid reasons. So, the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite party on 25-11-2013, demanding for payment of policy amount Rs.1,00,000/- and compensation along with costs but the opposite party did not respond.  So, the acts of the opposite party come under the purview of the deficiency of service.  

 

3.  After admission of the complaint, notice was issued to opposite party.  The opposite party received the notice and filed written version.

 

    4.  The brief averments of the counter are as follows:

 

          The opposite party submitted that one late R.Ragamma obtained a LIC policy from LIC city branch-1, Nellore under policy bearing No.843290639 for a sum assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 10/11/2009 and nominated her daughter Smt.R.Nagabhushanamma as nominee to the said policy.  Subsequently the said life assured was demised on 29/01/2012 and later the nominee who is the complainant submitted claim form to the corporation to get the amount lying under the policy relating to her mother.  On verification and on getting necessary documents, this opposite party  rightly repudiated the claim submitted by the nominee on the ground stating that the deceased life assured on the date of proposal had not given her correct age and basing on understatement of age the claim was repudiated as per corporation norms  under suppression of material facts.  Moreover, the DLA had not furnished the earlier policy bearing No.843290502 in  the current policy.

 

    The opposite party further submitted  that the Panchayat Secretary Anikepalli gram panchayat Venkatachalam mandalam, Nellore District  gave a certificate stating that the date of birth of DLA was 01/07/1969, and the same was questioned the date of birth of her daughter who is the nominee stated in her PAN card as 10/07/1966.  As per the PAN card if the daughter’s age is 43 years, the relative age of the mother i.e., the DLA is at least should be 60 years on the date of taking proposal, the minimum age as 17 years when DLA would have given birth to her daughter.   In the present application the declaration with regard to her age was 01/07/1963. It is clearly established that the DLA had suppressed her age and obtained the above policy with view to get wrongful gain from the opposite party. The opposite party states that if the DLA had declared her correct age by the time of taking policy in proposal given by her this opposite party have not offered this policy to the DLA as per the corporation rules.   The birth certificate given by competent authority and the opposite party further submits that the policy issued to the policyholders under good faith only. Hence, the opposite party rightly repudiated the claim submitted by the nominee basing on the suppression of material facts. So, this opposite party prays the Hon’ble Forum at the time of enquiry to dismiss the complaint with costs.

 

 5.  The complainant filed her affidavit on 10-07-2014 as PW1 and in support of her case got marked Exs.A1 to A9 documents and also filed written arguments on 30-06-2015. The opposite party filed their affidavit and additional affidavit on 13-08-2014 and 21-06-2016 respectively and in support of their case got marked Exs.B1 to B3 documents and also filed written arguments on 19-06-2015 and 21-06-2016 respectively.

 

6.  Heard arguments of both parties and perused the pleadings, documentary evidence placed on record and considered the written arguments filed behalf of on both sides.

 

 7.   Now, the points that arise for determinations are:

 

       1) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the

           opposite party as pleaded?

        2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

        3) To what relief?

 

8. POINTS 1 AND 2:  As per the pleadings and evidence on record we can understand that the complainant’s mother deceased Rapuru Ragamma during her life time obtained Jeevan Saral new Janaraksha policy bearing no.843290639 on 10-11-2009 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the opposite party.  The deceased life assured showed the complainant as nominee to the above said policy.  The yearly payable premium is Rs.5,073/- and the policy maturity date is 10-11-2024.   But, the complainant mother paid three yearly installments i.e., 10-11-2009, 10-11-2010 and 10-11-2011 respectively.  Subsequently, the DLA died on 29-01-2012. In that connection, the complainant submitted claim form to the opposite party for payment of policy amount.  But, the opposite party sent a repudiation letter stating that the deceased life assured taken the policy by under stating her age as on the date of proposal and also basing on claim relinquishment declaration of the complainant.  In this case, the opposite party admitted the deceased life assured policy and its admissibility along with payment of three yearly premiums.  During the course of arguments, the complainant states that the opposite party repudiated the policy amount stating that the DLA wrongly mentioned the correct age in the proposal form.  In contra, the complainant states that the opposite party issued the policy to the DLA basing on herself statement.   To prove the same, the complainant filed Ex.A3 policy.  The opposite party states that the nominee PAN card disclose her date of birth is 10-07-1966 and the DLA age is 01-07-69.  Moreover, the said PAN card proves  the age of DLA is false and she obtained the policy by suppressing her age with an intention to have wrongful gain from the opposite party.  In contra, the complainant states that the opposite party on verification, considering the DLA self statement issued the policy but to evade the policy amount, the opposite party took untenable defence.  The opposite party further states that the complainant gave policy claim relinquishment declaration for which she is not entitled any amount.  In contra, the complainant filed a decision reported in      I (2014)  CPJ 9 (CN)(AP) in LIC of India & ANR.  Vs. MIDDE RATNA KUMARI,  Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), 15 – Insurance (Life) Two policies – Death of life insured – Accidental benefit – Claim repudiated.  Regarding non-payment of accidental benefit plea of appellant that the complainant herself relinquished that benefit – No person would execute declaration that she would not require any accidental benefit – she would claim only sum assured  - obtaining of signature of respondent on various documents and her assertive statement that she was an illiterate and was made to sign on documents of which she was not sure of nor was brought to her knowledge amounts to coercive bargaining  - Repudiation of claim is bad and not sustainable – impugned order upheld.   

 

9.    In this case, the opposite party filed a Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, decision reported in Revision Petition No.1190/2008 pertaining to repudiation of claim on the ground of discrepancies, in the proposal form in respect of date of birth, age, income, details of earlier policy taken etc.,  But, the said decision is not applicable to the present facts of the case.

 

10.   Moreover, the opposite party as per section 45 of L.I.C. Act, cannot question the policy after lapse of 2 years. The repudiation of claim by the opposite party is not valid under Law. So, failure to pay the policy amount to the complainant policy amount without any lawful reason amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.   Accordingly, the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party is allowed. 

 

11.    In this case, the complainant claimed policy amount of Rs.100,000/- with interest @12% from 29-01-2012 to till the date of realization, compensation of Rs.50,000/- for illegal repudiation and harassment along with costs Rs.5,000/-.  After considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant is the policy amount of  Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @9%p.a. from 29-01-2012 to till the date of realization and  compensation of Rs.5,000/-  along with costs of Rs.2,000/- from the opposite party.

  

12.   In view of the above discussions and decision, we are of the view that the complainant proved the deficiency of service against the opposite party.  Hence, we answer the point Nos.1 and 2  in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party.

 

13.  POINT NO.3:In the result, the complaint is partly allowed, directing the opposite party to pay the policy (bearing no.843290639) amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) along with interest @ 9%(nine) p.a.,  from the date of this order to till the date of realization.

 

    The opposite party is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant.

 

     The opposite party is also directed to pay costs of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) to the complainant.

 

    The opposite party is directed to comply the order within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.  

 

Typed to dictation to the Stenographer transcribed by her and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the   19th  day of   SEPTEMBER                  2017.    

                        

               Sd/-                                                                       Sd/-

         MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

  APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

PW1

10-07-2014

:

Rapuru Nagabhushanamma, D/o.Late Ragamma, Hindu, aged 35 years, R/o.Golagamudi, Venkatachalam (M) Nellore (Dt.) Andhra Pradesh.

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

RW1	13-08-2014		B.Sreenivasulu, S/o.Viswanatham, Hindu, working as A.O. in the respondent’s office and residing at Nellore.
	21-06-2016		S.Raghavaiah, S/o.Sreeramasarma, Hindu, working as A.O. in the respondent’s office and residing at Nellore.

                                                                         

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT:

 

Ex.A1	09-10-2009	:	Date of birth certificate of complainant’s mother issued  by Panchayat Secretary, Anikepalli Gram Panchayat, Venkatachalam Mandal, Nellore District.
Ex.A2	25-02-2012	:	Copy of Death Certificate of complainant’s mother Panchayat Secretary, Anikepalli Gram Panchayat, Venkatachalam Mandal, Nellore District.
Ex.A3	10-11-2009	:	Photostat copy of the LIC Jeevan Saral (with profits) policy bearing No.843290639 issued by the opposite party in favour of the deceased Rapuru Ragamma.
Ex.A4	-	:	Premium receipt no. 0244499  for Rs.5,073/- issued by the opposite party in favour of the deceased Rapuru Ragamma.
Ex.A5	-	:	Renewal premium receipt  No.1277829 for Rs.5,073/- issued by the opposite party in favour of the deceased Rapuru Ragamma.
Ex.A6	-	:	Renewal Premium receipt no.5908395 for Rs.5,073/- issued by the opposite party in favour of the deceased Rapuru Ragamma.
Ex.A7	-	:	Filled Claimant’s statement by the deceased of the opposite party.
Ex.A8	26-11-2013		Legal notice got issued by the advocate for the complainant to the opposite party along with regd.post receipt.
Ex.A9	-	:	Photocopy of aadhar card bearing No.5388 3464 6925 of Rapuru Rangamma.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTY:                         

 

Ex.B1		:	Filled application form under proposal No.4909 of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional office, Nellore.
Ex.B2	10-11-2009	:	New Janaraksha Policy bearing No.843290639 issued by the opposite party to the deceased Rapuru Ragamma sum assured for Rs.1,00,000/- .
Ex.B3	12-02-2004	:	Introduction of LIC’s Jeevan Saral with profits (Table No.165) issued by the LIC central office to the all the HODS, Zonal, Divisional and branch offices.

 

                

                                                                               Id/-

                                                                      PRESIDENT

 

 

Copies to:

 

1) Sri C.P.Suresh, advocate, 27-2-42, 19^th cross road, Balaji Nagar, Nellore.

 

2) Sri D.V.R.Kiran Kumar, Advocate, 25-9-336, Z.P.Colony, Nellore – 524004.

 

 

 

Date when order copies were issued: