Date of Filing: 23.08.2012
Date of Disposal: 31.05.2013
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., President (FAC)
Sri M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Friday, the 31st day of May, 2013
C.C.No.47/2012
Between:
1. Moulali Sab S/o Chinna Baba Sab.
2. Baba Buden S/o Moula Ali.
3. Jaheeda D/o Moula Ali Sab.
All are residents of Sankaragallu Village,
Gudibanda Mandal,
Anantapur District. … Complainants
Vs.
1. The Manager,
Andhra Bank, Rallapalli Branch,
Gudibanda Mandal,
Anantapur District.
2. India First Life Insurance,
Rep by its Managing Director,
3rd Floor, Building No.4,
D Wing Infinity Park, 239, General A.K. Vaidya Marg,
Dindoshi- Malad East,
Mumbai - 400 097. … Opposite Parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri M.Murali Moham, Advocate for the complainant and Sri A.N.Guru Prasad Advocate for the 1st opposite party and Sri N.P.Sreenivasulu, 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 complainants under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 & 2 claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards insurance amount, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.5000/- towards legal expenses with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: - The 1st complainant is the husband of the deceased and the complainants 2 & 3 are the son and daughter of the deceased. The deceased is an Abhaya Jeevan account holder in the 1st opposite party branch. The 2nd opposite party is the insurer to the said policy. The wife of the 1st complainant and the mother of the complainants 2 & 3 opened Abhaya Jeevan account No.094510027000210 in the 1st opposite party branch. The 1st opposite party has collected premium from the complainant’s wife and the 2nd opposite party issued the policy to the account holder from the year 2003. Subsequently on 26.01.2011 the wife of the complainant died leaving behind her husband one son and one daughter as her legal heirs. After the death of the 1st complainant wife the complainants approached the 1st opposite party to settle the claim as she was insured under the said policy. As the opposite parties did not settle the claim of the complainants by postponing the same on some pretext or other, the complainants got issued a legal notice to the 1st opposite party to settle the claim. Though the complainants received the said notice they neither settled the claim nor gave any reply to the legal notice. The complainants filed this complaint against the opposite parties as the claim of the complainants was not settled though the first complainant’s wife was insured by the 2nd opposite party. Hence, filed this complainant for deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2.
3. Counter filed by the 1st opposite party stating that it is true that Sankaragallu Azmat Bee who is the wife of the 1st complainant and the mother of the complainants 2 & 3 opened a savings bank account under Abhaya Jeevan in the 1st opposite party branch. The 1st opposite party submits that Abhaya Jeevan is a savings bank account linked with life insurance which provides insurance coverage and accident death benefit between the age group of 18 to 55 years. The 1st opposite party submits that the premium was collected up to 01.12.2008 from the deceased (i.e.., up to 55 years age of the customer i.e. Sankaragallu Azmat Bee). The 1st opposite party submits that the said Sankaragallu Azmat Bee died on 26.01.2011 as per the death certificate and as on the date of death of the said Sankaragallu Azmat Bee she was 56 years old and the insurance coverage is only up to the age of 55 years. Hence, the 1st opposite party has rightly rejected the claim of the complainant. Further the 1st opposite party submits that as per the account opening form filled by the deceased Sankaragallu Azmat Bee which discloses that her age was 49 years as on 27.11.2003 and the date of birth is 15.03.1954. As per the death certificate the deceased age as on the date of death is 56 years. Hence, she is not under insurable age and no premium is also debited from her account. In the above circumstances the 1st opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 1st opposite party.
4. The 2nd opposite party filed counter stating that there is no privity of contract between the complainants and the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party submits that it is the group term insurance offered by L.I.C of India to Andhra Bank account holders till the year 2009 being annual in nature had covered the life of the deceased Sankaragallu Azmat Bee only till the year 2009 at the time of expiry of the policy the age of the deceased had crossed the maximum insurable age of 55 years under this plan. At the time of her death on 26.01.2011 the term insurance was not in force and as such there is no liability on the part of the 2nd opposite party under the India First Group Term Plan. Further the 2nd opposite party submits that no premium was deducted as per age band for deduction of premium from the account of the deceased by the 1st opposite party for the year 2009. Further the 2nd opposite party submits that it started its group term plan with the 1st opposite party account holders only from the year 2010 hence, no premium was ever received by the 2nd opposite party. Further the 2nd opposite party has not received any premium from the deceased the 2nd opposite party is not at all liable and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd opposite party.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following points that arise for consideration are:-
i) 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. The 1st opposite party filed his evidence on affidavit and marked Ex. B1 & B2 documents on behalf of the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party has not filed the evidence on affidavit and no documents has been marked on behalf of the 2nd opposite party.
7. Heard both sides
8. POINT: - There is no dispute with regard to the Abhaya Jeevan account held by the wife of the 1st complainant and the mother of the complainants 2 & 3 in the 1st opposite party branch and the said savings bank account was linked with Life Insurance coverage and accidental death benefit between the age group of 18 to 55 years. As per the above said condition premium was deducted from the account of the deceased Sankaragallu Azmat Bee up to 01.12.2008 as she was 55 years as on 2008.
9. The counsel for the complainant argued that the wife of the 1st complainant was a Abhaya Jeevan account holder since 2003 in the 1st opposite party branch and there was a tie up between the 1st opposite party and the 2nd opposite party and yearly premium was deducted from the account of the deceased Sankaragallu Azmat Bee and she is covered under the insurance policy issued by the 2nd opposite party. But after death of said Sankaragallu Azmat Bee on 26.01.2011 the complainants made a claim to the 1st opposite party but the 1st opposite party did not show any interest to settle the claim. Then the complainants got issued legal notice to the 1st opposite party to settle the claim for that also there was no response. The counsel for the complainant argued that the above acts of the 1st opposite party clearly show that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 in settling the claim of the complainant. Hence they are liable to pay the compensation.
10. The counsel for the 1st opposite party argued that it is true that the said Sankaragallu Azmat Bee was an account holder since 2003 and it is also true that she was covered under insurance up to the age 55 years as per the Abya jeeven terms and conditions. Further the 1st opposite party counsel argued that as per the account opening form the said Sankaragallu Azmat Bee was 49 years old as on the date of opening of the account i.e., 27.11.2003 and the date of birth is mentioned as 15.03.1954. The counsel for the 1st opposite party argued that as seen from the date of birth and date of death she was 56 years old at the time of death. Further the counsel for the 1st opposite party argued that no premium was deducted from the account of the deceased as she crossed the age of 55 years. Hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 1st opposite party.
11. The counsel for the 2nd opposite party that the group term insurance was offered by LIC of India to the Andhra Bank account holders till the year 2008 being annual in nature had covered the life of the deceased Sankaragallu Azmat Bee only till the year 2009 and at the time of expiry of the policy the age of the deceased had crossed the maximum insurable age of 55 years as per the complaint and further the counsel for the 2nd opposite party argued that the 2nd opposite party had started its group term plan with Andhra Bank account holders only from the year 2010 and no premium was ever received by the 2nd opposite party from the deceased as at the time of commencement of the group term plan the deceased was beyond the insurable age of 55 years. Hence the 2nd opposite party not at all a party to the complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed for miss-joinder of parties.
12. After hearing the arguments and perusing the documents there is no dispute with regard to Abhaya Jeevan account which was held by the deceased in the 1st opposite party branch. Further it is also an admitted fact that she was covered under the insurance up to the age of 55 years as per the document Ex.B1 the account opening form of the 1st opposite party in which the age of the account holder is mentioned as 49 years as on the date of opening the account i.e., 27.11.2003 and the date of birth is mentioned as 15.03.1954. From the above document it is very clear that she was 56 years old as on the date of death i.e., 26.01.2011. As per the document Ex.A6 which is filed by the complainant which is the brochure issued by the 1st opposite party in joint venture with the 2nd opposite party and the said document clearly discloses in its second condition that who can open AB Jeevan Abhaya Savings Bank Account? The scheme is open to all those who are in the age group of 18 to 55 years. The above condition clearly establishes that the persons above the age of 18 years and below the age 55 years are only covered under the insurance. Hence, the arguments of the complainant cannot accepted and considering the arguments of the opposite parties 1 & 2 that the said Sankaragallu Azmat Bee is not covered under the insurance as she crossed the age of 55 years and no premium was deducted from her account after she attained 55 years.
13. In the above circumstances it is very clear that as the deceased died at the age of 56 years as per the Ex.B1 which is the account opening form in which the age is declared as 49 years as on the date of opening the account i.e., 27.11.2003 and the date of birth is also mentioned as on 15.03.1954. Further no premium is collected by the 1st opposite party from the deceased and as no premium is collected from the deceased the complainants cannot claim the insurance sum from the opposite parties. The rejection of claim by the 1st opposite party is no deficiency of service. In view of the above observations there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 and they are not liable to pay any compensation.
14. 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 31st day of May, 2013.
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 PARTIES
-NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANTS
Ex.A1 Original pass book issued by the 1st opposite party in favour the deceased
Sankaragallu Azmat Bee.
Ex.A2 Photo copy of death certificate relating to deceased Sankaragallu Azmat Bee
Issued by the village Secretary Rallapalli, Gudibanda Mandal, Anantapur
District.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of Hose hold card relating to deceased Sankaragallu Azmat Bee
Ex.A4 Office copy of the legal notice got issued by the complainants to the 1st opposite
party.
Ex.A5 Postal acknowledgement signed by the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A6 Photo copy of AB Jeevan Abhaya saving bank account launched by the
2nd opposite party is leaflet of.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE 1st OPPOSITE PARTY
Ex.B1 Original account opening form relating to deceased Sankaragallu Azmat Bee
Ex.B2 Photo copy of AB Jeeva Abhaya scheme dt.23.11.2012 issued by 1st opposite
party.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE 2nd OPPOSITE PARTY
NIL
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
