Andhra Pradesh
Chittoor-II at triputi
CC/29/2016
K.Swetha, D/o D.S.Jayakumari, W/o Muralikrishna Reddy - Complainant(s)
Versus
The Superintendent of Post Offices - Opp.Party(s)
G.Sambasivudu
10 Aug 2017
ORDER
Filing Date: 07.04.2016
Order Date:10.08.2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,
CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI
PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,
Smt. T.Anitha, Member
THURSDAY THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN
C.C.No.29/2016
Between
1. K.Swetha,
D/o. late. D.S.Jayakumari,
W/o. Muralikrishna Reddy,
Aged about 33 years,
2. K.Swathi,
W/o. Sekar,
Aged about 30 years,
Both are residing at:
D.No.5-134, Padmavathi Nagar,
Tirupati. … Complainants.
And
1. The Superintendent of Post Office,
Postal Life Insurance,
Head Post Office,
Tirupati Division,
Tirupati.
2. The Assistant Divisional Manager,
Postal Life Insurance Office,
Chief Post Master General,
A.P.Circle,
Hyderabad. … Opposite parties.
This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 26.07.17 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.G.Sambasivudu, Sri.K.Sekhar Babu, counsel for complainants, and Sri.K.Ajey Kumar, counsel for opposite parties, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-
ORDER
DELIVERED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT
ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH
This complaint is filed under Section – 12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainants against the opposite parties for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to settle the death claims of Rs.10,00,000/- under policy No.AP314989-P and another policy No.AP392992-CS of late D.S.Jayakumari, along with interest at 15% p.a. from the date of submitting the claim i.e. on 20.02.2012 till realization, 2) to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards deficiency in service and 3) to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
2. The brief averments of the complaint are:- That the complainants 1 and 2 are the daughters of late. Smt.D.S.Jayakumari, who obtained two postal life insurance policies vide 1) AP 314989-P for Rs.5,00,000/- on 15.10.2008 and another 2) AP 392992-CS for Rs.5,00,000/- on 21.01.2010, from the opposite parties with monthly premium of Rs.5,000/- for both the policies. The complainants were shown in the above referred policies as nominees of the insured in both the policies. By the time of taking policies their mother Jayakumari was hale and healthy and she used to pay all the premiums regularly. That the insured Jayakumari died on 15.10.2010. Later the complainants being the nominees have approached the opposite party No.1 for settlement of policy amount. The opposite party No.1 gave claim forms and asked the complainants to fill them and submit the claim forms along with all the originals. Accordingly, the complainants have submitted the claim forms along with all the original documents, including the postal life insurance bonds on 20.01.2012. The opposite party No.1 assured that the claims will be settled soon after getting approval from 2nd opposite party. Later, despite several requests and representations made by the complainants, opposite party No.1, used to ask the complainants to wait for some time. Finally on 13.11.2015 complainants approached the opposite party No.1 and questioned for non-settlement of the claim since last 41/2 years, but opposite party No.1 did not care for them, which shows negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
3. On 30.12.2015 complainants sent letter to opposite parties requesting them to settle the claims under the policies of the deceased insured. On 07.01.2016 opposite parties sent letter asking the complainants to attend the office of the opposite party with original policy receipts of both the policies and other relevant documents, which were already submitted to the opposite parties on 20.01.2012 itself along with the claim forms. The complainants got issued legal notice on 17.02.2016 to opposite parties with a request to settle the claims. On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties gave reply on 23.02.2016 informing the complainants that the notice got issued by the complainants is forwarded for taking necessary steps, but so far the claim is not settled. Hence the complaint.
4. The opposite parties filed their written version admitting that Smt.D.S.Jayakumari, Staff Nurse, S.V.R.R.G. Hospital, had taken two postal life insurance policies bearing Nos.AP-314989-P on 23.10.2008 and another policy bearing No.AP-392992-CS on 01.02.2010 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each. It is also admitted that insurant died on 15.10.2010 due to heart attack and lung infection. For both the policies premiums were paid up to October 2010 @ Rs.4375/- per month and Rs.4875/- per month respectively. Both the complainants by name K.Swetha and K.Swathi, were the nominees for the 1st policy and K.Swetha alone is the nominee for the 2nd policy. Both K.Swetha and K.Swathi are the daughters of the insured / policy holder. Both the complainants have preferred death claim under the above policies vide their applications dt:09.11.2010 along with death certificate of D.S.Jayakumari, policy documents and premium pass book.
5. That the opposite parties have investigated on the cause of death of policy holder, as the death was taken place before 3 years from the date of acceptance of policy, and came to know that late insurant was availed half pay leave on medical certificate given by SVIMS for 20 days on medical grounds “Intestinal Lung Disease, DM, GTCS, SMTVS EPILEPICUS” from 25.11.2006 to 14.12.2006 and again half pay leave on medical certificate issued by SVIMS for 38 days on medical grounds “Recurrent Seizure K/C/O, DM-Drug Induced, ILD” from 04.03.2008 to 10.04.2008 i.e. prior to 3 years of taking policy. But the insurant did not disclose those particulars in the proposed form at the required columns while taking policy, but declared that she is in good health and she did not have any serious illness. Hence, opposite party No.2 did not admit the death claim under Rule-53 of Post Office Life Insurance Rules, for suppression of material facts. The same was informed to the complainant through letter No.PLI/DC I – 389/9-2011/AP-314989-P dt:07.10.2011. The complainants having aggrieved by this got issued legal notice on 02.04.2014 through their advocate. The opposite party gave reply to the said notice dt:21.05.2014. As per the rules, the policies become void and amounts paid shall be forfeited and the declaration made there under are found to be untrue. Complainants are informed that the claim was “rejected” as per Rule-53 of Post Office Life Insurance Rules.
6. The opposite parties further contended that the allegations made by the complainants are totally false. The claim was already rejected in 2011 itself by opposite party No.2 vide CPMG AP Circle Hyderabad Lr.Nos PLI/DCI-389/9-2011/AP-314959-P dt:07.10.2011 and PLI/DC I-390/9-2011/AP-392992-CS dt:07.10.2011. There is neither negligence nor deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.
7. For the complainants P.W.1 filed evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. For the opposite parties R.W.1 filed evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.B1 to B6. Both the parties have filed their respective written arguments.
8. Now the points for consideration are:-
(i). Whether rejection or repudiation of death claims is justified?
(ii). Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
(iii). Whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs sought for?
(iv). To what relief?
9. Point No.(i):- to answer this point, the opposite parties have to substantiate their version that the deceased insured had suppressed pre-existing illness, on that ground, opposite party No.2 has rejected the death claims made by the complainants herein, being the daughters and nominees of the deceased insured, as shown in the policy bearing No. AP 314989-P, dt:23.10.2008 and another policy bearing No. AP 392992-CS, dt:01.02.2010 for Rs.5,00,000/- each. The opposite parties in their written version as well as in their evidence affidavit categorically admitted that the complainants are daughters of late. Smt.D.S.Jayakumari, the policy holder. During her life time, D.S.Jayakumari, had worked as staff nurse in S.V.R.R.G.Hospital, Tirupati, that D.S.Jayakumari has taken two postal life insurance policies referred to above for Rs.5,00,000/- each, and she had paid the premiums regularly upto October 2010 @ Rs.4,375/- p.m. for the 1st policy, and Rs.4,875/- p.m. for the 2nd policy respectively. That the insured died on 15.10.2010. Thereafter, admittedly both the complainants i.e. K.Swetha and K.Swathi, being the nominees of the insured for the 1st policy and K.Swetha, being the nominee of the 2nd policy, have filed the death claims, on the death of Jayakumari, who is none other than the mother of the complainants in respect of both the policies on 09.11.2010 along with the death certificate of D.S.Jayakumari, policy document and premium pass book admittedly. That after receipt of the claim forms from the complainants, the opposite party has taken-up investigation, as demanded under Rule-53 of Post Office Life Insurance Rules 2011, to know the cause of death of the policy holder, as the death was taken place before completion of 3 years from the date of acceptance of the policies, and finally they came to know that the insured availed half pay leave on medical certificate given by SVIMS for 20 days on medical grounds i.e. “Intestinal Lung Disease, DM, GTCS, SMTVS EPILEPICUS” from 25.11.2006 to 14.12.2006 and again she availed half pay leave on medical certificate issued by SVIMS for 38 days on medical grounds “Recurrent Seizure K/C/O, DM-Drug Induced, ILD” from 04.03.2008 to 10.04.2008 i.e. about 3 years prior to taking of policies. They further contended that as per Rule-53 of Post Office Life Insurance Rules, the policies shall become void and the amounts paid by the insured shall be forfeited, that the statement contained in the proposal form and the declaration made there under are found to be untrue. In support of their case, the opposite party has relied on Ex.B6, which is neither a certificate nor discharge summary or case sheet or medical history of the deceased D.S.Jayakumari. The Superintendent, SVRR Govt. General Hospital, Tirupati, addressed Ex.B6 in Rc.No.331/E2/2011 dt:22.02.2011, to The Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirupati Division, Tirupati. At the enclosure column it was mentioned that photocopies of individual applications along with medical certificates are herewith enclosed, but no such applications or medical certificates were filed before this Forum. This document is not supported by the affidavit of the Superintendent of SVRR Govt. General Hospital, Tirupati, or the concerned doctor, who treated Jayakumari during the alleged period. Basing on this document, the opposite parties have rejected the death claims.
10. That apart for the reasons best known to the opposite parties, they have not filed the proposal forms or declaration given by the deceased insured at the time of taking policies. Necessarily at the time of taking policies, the agent of the opposite parties will collect signatures and other information from the proposed insurer, and their panel doctor will examine the proposer and then only the policy will be accepted i.e. the regular process and procedure being followed by all the insurance companies including the postal department, who issued insurance policies. In this regard, we have to state that rejection of death claims on the basis of Ex.B6, which is neither a certificate nor the medical history of Jayakumari nor discharge summary of Jayakumari, and it is not supported by any affidavit of the doctor, who treated the said Jayakumari, or the Superintendent, who issued Ex.B6. Therefore, it cannot be relied on and rejection of death claims on the basis of such un-supported document is unsustainable. In this regard, the learned counsel for complainant relied on a decision reported in II (2016) CPJ 649 (NC) – Kamla Devi Vs. LIC of India and Ors., in which their Lordships observed at Paras 6 and 7 that it is not disputed that husband of petitioner obtained insurance policy from OP for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and for that purpose submitted proposal form on 26.05.2000, in which he stated his health to be good and replied in negative to all the questions regarding his illness. The learned District Forum allowed complaint, but the State Commission allowed the appeal on the basis of certificate issued by PGIMS, Rohtak, in which it was observed as under “Patient was a known case of CRF (Chronic Renal Failure) and was on HD&BT (Hemodialysis and Blood Transfusion). He was on Renal Clinic Follow No.660 in 1999-2000 from PGIMS, Rohtak, Dr.Sundeep Jain, M.D (Med.), Jain Lifecare, Approach Road, Near Railway Station, Rohtak, DMR LIC of India (00343176) dt:25.06.2014”. This certificate has been issued by Dr.Sundeep Jain and it appears that Dr.Jain is concerned with Jain Lifecare. Neither any affidavit of Dr.Sundeep Jain has been filed by OP to prove that deceased was treated in hospital in 1999-2000 nor any hospital record has been placed to substantiate that deceased was treated for Chronic Renal Failure in that period. OP has also placed on record investigation report in which also this fact has been mentioned that deceased was treated in hospital in 1999-2000, but he has also not quoted any treatment record / dispatch summary from the hospital. In the absence of any cogent evidence, it cannot be presumed that deceased has taken treatment from PGIMS, Rohtak, pertaining to Chronic Renal Failure before filling proposal form and has suppressed material disease and obtained policy in a fraudulent manner, and their Lordships allowed the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner and order dt:02.04.2012 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No.2793/2006 is set aside and order of the District Forum dt:03.10.2006 passed in Complaint No.17/2004 is affirmed. Parties to bear their costs. The facts of the above case are clearly applicable to the facts of the case on hand, and therefore we hold that repudiation or rejection of death claims is not justified.
11. The learned counsel for the complainants also relied on another decision reported in I(2016) CPJ 613 (NC) – Satish Chander Madan Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., the facts of the case are that complainant purchased an Overseas Travel Insurance Policy from the respondent / opposite party for sum insured US$2,00,000. As per the policy, against one ailment the maximum insurance cover was 15,000 US$ equivalent to Rs.7,50,000/-. The complainant reached London on 28.05.2010. Few days later, during the subsistence of the insurance policy, the complainant developed complaint of chest pain. He thus consulted the doctor and was admitted in hospital at London on 03.06.2010 with problem of unstable angina. On the advice of doctor, the complainant underwent Coronary Bypass Graft Surgery at Wellington Hospital, London. He was discharged from the hospital on 14.06.2010. According to the complainant, he paid 12,005 pounds as expenses for surgery as also the consultation fee etc. The insurance claim for reimbursement of said amount was repudiated by the opposite party vide letter dt:06.07.2010 on the ground that claim was not payable because as per the medical record obtained from the treating doctor / hospital, the complainant was having past medical history of hypercholestremia, Ischaemic Heart Disease as well as hypertension, which were excluded as per the insurance contract. Being aggrieved by the repudiation of the insurance claim, the petitioner / complainant raised a consumer dispute, which was contested by the opposite party. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and evidence, allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.7,19,500/- to the complainant towards expenses of his treatment with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 22.03.2012 till the date of payment and also to pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent insurance company preferred an appeal. The State Commission on consideration of record and submissions made on behalf of the parties came to conclusion that respondent was justified in repudiating the insurance claim because the complainant had obtained insurance policy by concealing the factum of his previous ailment, namely, hypertension, which has a nexus with the heart problem. Being aggrieved of the order of the State Commission, the petitioner complainant has filed the revision petition before the National Commission. Their Lordships of National Commission held that the State Commission has committed a grave error in deviating from the real facts in allowing the appeal of the respondent resulting in dismissal of complaint on conjectures and surmises. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained. We, accordingly allow the revision petition, set aside the impugned order and restore the order of the District Forum holding that hypertension is a common ailment and it can be controlled by medication and it is not necessary that person suffering from hypertension would always suffer a heart attack and rejected the arguments of the respondent insurance company. In this regard, we have to further state that the opposite parties having accepted two insurance policies from the deceased D.S.Jayakumari under policy No.AP-314989-P dt:23.10.2008 for Rs.5,00,000/-, and another policy No.AP-392992-CS dt:01.02.2010 for Rs.5,00,000/-, and having collected monthly premiums at Rs.4,375/- and Rs.4,875/- respectively for the said two insurance policies upto October 2010, when the insured died, they stated that they have took-up investigation to find out the cause of the death of the insured and came to know that the insured had availed half pay leave on medical grounds for 20 days at the first instance from 25.11.2006 to 14.12.2006 and in the second spell for a period of 38 days from 04.03.2008 to 10.04.2008 and obtained Ex.B6 issued by the Superintendent, SVRR Govt. General Hospital, Tirupati on 22.02.2011. Ex.B6 did not disclose the nature of disease Jayakumari suffered during the alleged period and the medicines prescribed for her by the treating doctor. When Ex.B6 did not contain the nature of disease and disclosing only that she had availed leave on medical grounds, it cannot be interpreted that she suffered from severe disease. In the absence of hospital record, discharge summary or any affidavit from the doctor, who treated Jayakumari or the doctor who issued Ex.B6, and also in the absence of nature of disease and medicines prescribed for Jayakumari in Ex.B6, this document under Ex.B6 appears to be vague and it cannot be relied on under any circumstances. Generally in the proposal form the panel doctor of the opposite party will examine the insured before accepting the policy and he will certify whether the proposer / policy holder is suffering from any chronic disease or severe illness, but the opposite parties wisely did not file the proposal forms in the Forum. In this regard, the learned counsel for the complainants relied on another decision reported in AIR 2003 ANDHRA PRADESH 153 – Life Insurance Corporation of India, Machilipatnam Vs. Vankadaru Koteswaramma, in which their Lordships held that – Proposal for insurance – Acceptance of – Policy proposal submitted by insured through an authorized agent of corporation – Administrative Officer of Corporation subscribing his signature in token of acceptance of same day – Insured was examined by panel doctor of corporation – It constitutes valid acceptance of policy before death of insured – Further enquiry undertaken by Corporation regarding factum of death of insured and subsequent communication of repudiation of contract presupposes existence of policy – Allegation of misrepresentation of fact by insured that he was suffering from diabetes while submitting proposals for policy – Insured after submission of policy was examined by panel doctor of corporation – Said panel doctor on examination found that there was no traces of diabetes – Provisions of Sec-45 cannot be invoked. Rate of interest of the claim enhanced from 6% p.a. to 12% p.a. and allowed the claim. The learned counsel also relied on another decision reported in 2006 (1) CPR 258 – A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad – LIC of India and Ors. Vs. Mora Rajeswari, in this case, their Lordships held – Repudiation of claim on the ground of suppression of material facts – No document produced to show that complainant’s husband was in knowledge of disease and willfully suppressed that fact before revival of policy – Since burden of proving false representation and suppression of material facts not sufficiently discharged by Insurance Company – Hence complainant held entitled to policy amount.
12. The facts of the above decisions are squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand, as the opposite parties insurance company having rejected the death claims made by the complainants on the ground that the policy holder suppressed pre- existing ailment, failed to discharge their burden in proving the said contention of “suppression of material facts or pre-existing disease”. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the repudiation or rejection of death claims of the complainants under Exs.B4 and B5 is not justified. Accordingly this point is answered.
13. Point No.(ii):- in order to prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainants made their claims on the death of insured, who is none other than the mother of the complainants, who had shown the complainants as the nominees of insured Jayakumari admittedly. When the opposite parties themselves admitted specifically the death of insured on 15.10.2010 and also claim made by the complainants on 09.11.2010 i.e. within a month on the death of the insured is also admitted by the opposite parties, the complainants have submitted death certificate of late. Jayakumari, policy document and premium pass book, the opposite parties having collected premiums in a sum of Rs.2,58,750/- under both the policies, they did not settle the claims so far, but they want to forfeited the said amount paid by the insured. The opposite parties have not assigned any cogent reasons as to why the said amounts have to be forfeited. The grounds relied on by the opposite parties for rejection / repudiation of the claims and for forfeit the said amounts are only basing on Ex.B6, which did not disclose whether Jayakumari has admitted in any hospital whether in SVRR Govt. General Hospital or any other hospital at any point of time during her life time either prior to taking policies or subsequent to taking policies till her death, it also did not disclose that Jayakumari has taken treatment under any particular doctor. The document under Ex.B6 discloses only that she availed leave on medical grounds during the period mentioned there under, but it did not disclose the nature of disease she suffered and nature of treatment she had taken and the doctor who treated her etc. but the opposite parties contended that the insured availed leave on medical grounds i.e. “Interstinal Lung Disease, DM, GTCS, SMTVS EPILEPICUS” and also for Recurrent Seizure K/C/O, DM-Drug Induced, ILD” but the opposite parties did not disclose from where this information was collected by the opposite parties, when this information was absent under Ex.B6. Admittedly, the insured was died on 15.10.2010. The complainants made claims on the death of insured being the nominees and daughters of the insured on 09.11.2010 along with death certificate of D.S.Jayakumari, policy document and premium pass books, but kept those claims with the opposite parties unsettled.
14. The opposite parties contending that the opposite party No.2, did not admit the claims on the ground that the insured has suppressed her pre-existing serious illness / disease while taking policy. For this purpose, the opposite parties relied on Ex.B6 and further contended that the same was informed to the complainants under Exs.B4 and B5 dt:07.10.2011, but no scrap of paper is filed before this Forum to show that Exs.B4 and B5 were served on the complainants, even they did not file the postal receipts or the postal acknowledgements etc. in proof of service of Exs.B4 and B5 on the complainants. On the other hand, the opposite parties failed to furnish the exact date on which the claims were rejected / repudiated. Instead of settling the claims or paying the amounts assured under the polices AP-314989-P and AP-392992-CS, they proposed to forfeit the amounts paid by the insured under monthly premiums till October 2010, a total sum of Rs.2,58,750/-. Infact, it appears that the opposite party has suppressed the material facts that were mentioned in the proposal form by not filing the proposal forms for both the policies referred to above and also insurance policies. If the proposals were filed before the Forum, the facts will come out to the effect that whether the panel doctor of opposite party has refused to accept the proposal or accepted the proposal for taking policies. So, under those circumstances, though the claims made in the year 2010, kept the matter pending till 2017 without settling the same, and by stating that the claims were rejected on the basis of Ex.B6, which is a baseless and unsustainable document, we are of the opinion that there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in settling the claims of the complainants. Accordingly, this point is answered.
15. Point No.(iii):- In view of our discussion on points 1 and 2, we have to hold that the complainants have established that they are entitled for the claims made on the death of their mother, being nominees of the insured, but the opposite parties have intentionally kept the matter unsettled for the last more than 6 years. The complainants are the daughters of the insured and they are the nominees of the insured for both the policies. Therefore, their claim is quite genuine and reasonable and the complainants are entitled for the relief sought for. Accordingly this point is answered.
16. Point No.(iv):- In view of our discussion on points 1 to 3, we are of the opinion that the complainants have established that the orders of rejection of repudiation of claims made by the opposite parties as alleged under Exs.B4 and B5 are unsustainable and unjustified, that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainants are entitled for the assured amounts under both the policies and the complaint is to be allowed accordingly.
In the result, complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay the assured amounts of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) under each policy bearing Nos. AP-314989-P and AP-392992-CS (totaling Rs.10,00,000/-) under both the claims made by the complainants on the death of their mother, policy holder late. Smt.D.S.Jayakumari, along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of claim i.e. 09.11.2010, till realization. That the opposite parties 1 and 2 are also directed jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) under each policy towards deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and for causing mental agony to the complainants. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the complaint, and both the opposite parties jointly and severally directed to comply with the orders within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- (25,000 + 25,000) shall also carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 10th day of August, 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
Lady Member President
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant.
PW-1: K. Swetha (Chief Affidavit filed).
Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartIES.
RW-1: K. Nagabhushanam (Evidence Affidavit filed).
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Exhibits (Ex.A) | Description of Documents |
Letter given by the Complainant to the Opposite party. Dt: 30.12.2015. | |
Reply send by the complainant to the opposite parties. Dt: 21.01.2016. | |
Office copy of Legal Notice issued by complainant to the opposite parties with postal receipt. Dt: 17.02.2016. | |
Reply Notice by the way of Legal Notice Dt: 23.02.2016 sent by the 2nd Opposite party with postal cover Dt: 27.02.2016. |
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
Exhibits (Ex.B) | Description of Documents |
Postal Life Insurance policy Dt: 02.02.2010 along with the passbook in Original. Date of Proposal: 21.01.2010, Date of Maturity: 01.02.2019. | |
Postal Life Insurance policy Dt: 07.01.2009 along with the passbook in Original. Policy No.AP-314989-P. Date of Proposal: 15.10.2008, Date of Maturity: 23.10.2018. | |
Letter from Dy. Divisional Manager (PLI), O/o. the CPMG, AP Circle, Hyderabad (Office copy in Original) regarding the settlement of death claim in r/o. PLI Policy No.1) AP-314989-CS 2) AP-392992-CS holding by Late D.S.Jayakumari. (Letter reference No.PLI/Court Cases/Genl/13-14 dated at Hyderabad-500 001, the 21.05.2014). | |
Letter from Assistant Divisional Manager (PLI), O/o. the CPMG, AP Circle, Hyderabad regarding the settlement of death claim in PLI Policy No. AP-314989-P held by late D.S. Jaya Kumari in Original. (Letter Reference No.PLI/DCI-389/9-2011/AP-314989-P dated at Hyderabad the 07.10.2011.) | |
Letter from Assistant Divisional Manager (PLI), O/o. the CPMG, AP Circle, Hyderabad regarding the settlement of death claim in PLI Policy No. AP-392992-CS held by late D.S. Jaya Kumari in Original. (Letter Reference No.PLI/DCI-390/9-2011/AP-392992-CS dated at Hyderabad the 07.10.2011.) | |
Furnishing of information regarding medical history of late Smt D.S.Jaya Kumari, Head Nurse, SVRR Govt., General Hospital, Tirupati by the way of letter(in Original) from Superintendent, SVRR Govt., General Hospital, Tirupati. (Letter Reference No: Rc.No.331/E2/2011, Dated 22.02.2011.) |
Sd/-
President
// TRUE COPY //
// BY ORDER //
Head Clerk/Sheristadar,
Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.
Copies to:- 1. The complainants.
2. The opposite parties.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.