Date of filing : 10-11-2011
Date of Disposal : 25-03-2013
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 25th day of March, 2013
C.C.NO.168/2011
Between:
Smt.Gudupati Bhulakshmidevi
W/o Late G.Venkata Naidu
r/o Pedda Mogalaipalli Village,
Chennekothapalli Mandal
Anantapur District. …Complainant
Vs.
1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
rep. by its Divisional Manager,
Meda Complex, Subash Road,
Anantapur.
2. The Branch Manager,
Canara Bank,
Medapuram Village,
Chennekothapalli Mandal
Anantapur District. … Opposite Parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri G.Venkatesulu, advocate for the complainant and Sri V.Krishna Sharma, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 and Sri K.Chenna Reddy, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2 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
Smt.M.Sreelatha, Lady Member: - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 & 2 to direct them to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased by name G.Venkata Naidu due to snake bite under Kisan Credit Card Policy and grant such other relief or reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: - The complainant filed the complaint against the opposite parties claiming compensation for the death of the deceased by name G.Venkata Naidu due to snake bite on 27-11-2009 and the same was registered in Cr.No.84/09 under section 174 Cr.P.C. The deceased has taken Kisan Credit Card Policy covered by the opposite party No.2 i.e. Canara Bank, Medapuram Branch. The deceased went on 26-11-2009 to his fields to give water and he slept in the fields in the night. While sleeping some snake has bitten him. Then he went to his house and informed to his wife that I am reeling sensation since night. Then his wife and other relatives were taking him to Kanamukkala Village for first aid but due to reeling sensation he fell down in the Bus Stand, then shifted to Govt. Hospital, Dharmavaram. The duty doctors advised them to take him to Govt. General Hospital, Anantapur. Meanwhile, he died near Bathalapalli before reaching destination. It is submitted that the husband of the complainant i.e. G.Venkata Naidu died due to snake bite. The opposite party covered insurance of Rs.50,000/- to the loanees but the opposite party not settled the claim, hence there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the opposite parties are liable to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- under Kisan Credit Card Policy as the deceased died due to snake bite and the opposite party No.1 repudiated the claim on 02-09-2010 without any reliable ground. Hence the complainant filed the present complaint and the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation.
3. The counsel for the opposite party No.1 filed counter on behalf of the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 denied that the deceased G.Venkata Naidu died due to snake bite on 27-11-2009 covered under Kissan Credit Card Holder’s policy and he was account-holder with opposite party No.2 is not admitted and the opposite party denied that the deceased went to his agricultural fields on 26-11-2009 at night hours and while sleeping a snake was bite him on the next day morning, he informed to his wife about his reeling sensation and want to take medical treatment and was going to Kanumukkala Village for the said purpose, at that time one of his relatives taken him on his two wheeler and approached Govt. Hospital, Dharmavaram and as per the advise of the duty doctors , the said Venkata Naidu was being taken to Govt. Hospital, Anantapur and in the meanwhile he died near Bathalapalli. The opposite party further denied that the deceased died due to snake bite only and the complainant is entitled a sum of Rs.50,000/- as the deceased was Kishan Credit Card Holder and the opposite party further denied that the repudiation of the claim without any basis is also incorrect. The opposite party submits that as per the records and complaint given by Muthyalu a case was registered by C.K.Palli Police. As per the advice of the doctors, who conducted postmortem the samples are sent to A.P.Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad, who in turn sent a report to the Tahsidlar, C.K.Palli after thorough examination. The experts clearly submitted their report that the above items are analyzed but no chemical poisonous subsistence is found in them. Thus the Forensic Report clearly shows that there is no poisonous subsistence in the samples sent for examination by the doctors, Dharmavaram. On the other hand as seen from the complaint, F.I.R., Inquest Report etc., clearly mentioned that the death of the deceased may be due to snake bite or due to some other reason. The death certificate issued by the Secretary, Medapuram Gram Panchayat does not show the cause of death. Under Postmortem certificate, the doctors could not come to conclusion that the death of the deceased is due to snake bite and the matter referred to A.P.Forensic Laboratory for opinion. In view of the clear findings given by the A.P.Forensic Laboratory authorities, the death is not due to poisonous subsistence. Hence it can safely come to conclusion that the alleged cause of death i.e. snake bite is not correct. Hence the complainant is not entitled any claim under Kishan Credit Card Holder’s Policy Scheme and the complainant has not submitted any claim forms to the Company as required under policy conditions. The opposite party further submits that as per the conditions of the policy, intimation should be given to the company within 30 days from the date of occurrence whereas the present case, the same is informed to the company more than 200 days after the alleged incident. There is clear violation of policy conditions. It is submitted that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the entire records filed by the complainant are not supporting her case. Further the allegation that the complainant sent all the required documents to the opposite party No.2 is not correct. This opposite party has not received such records from the opposite party No.2. The opposite party further submits that in view of the violation of policy condition No.1 and other conditions, the company is absolutely not liable to pay any compensation. The contents of the repudiation letter may be read as part and parcel of this counter. It is submitted that in order to get wrongful gain the complainant has not filed any forensic report, which is an important to decide the case and the complainant filed this complaint with false grounds. Hence the complainant is not entitled any compensation and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs of this opposite party.
4. The counsel for the opposite party No.2 filed the counter stating that it is true that the husband of the complainant is the Kishan Credit Card Account-holder bearing No.9454 under Scheme Code No.22 KCCS. As per the policy No.051000/47/09/4300000345 dt.13-11-2009, the opposite party No.1 is only liable to pay compensation if any because the policy is in force from 03-11-2009 to 12-11-2010. As per the P.A.I.S. norms the complainant is not eligible for compensation from the opposite party No.2. The opposite party further submits that the intimation alongwith insurance policy bond submitted to the opposite party No.1, immediately when the complainant claimed compensation after next day of claim. Hence there is no fault on the part of the opposite party No.2. if there is any delay i.e. duty of the complainant and the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 is only responsible to pay compensation if any through this opposite party No.2 submitted policy copy to opposite party No.1. In fact in order to get wrongful gain the opposite party No.1 has not filed policy copy bearing No.051000/47/09/ 43-00000345, which is an important one to decide the case. Hence the Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs against the opposite party No.2.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether G.Venkata Naidu died due to snake bite?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties
1 & 2 ?
3. To what relief?
6. To prove the case of the complainant, the evidence on affidavit of the complainant has been filed and marked Ex.A1 to A5 documents. On behalf of the 1st opposite party, evidence on affidavit of 1st opposite party has been filed and marked Ex.B1 to B4 documents and on behalf of the 2nd opposite party, evidence on affidavit of 2nd opposite party has been filed and no documents have been marked.
7. Heard both sides.
8. POINT NO.1 – The counsel for the complainant argued that the deceased was Kishan Credit Card Holder and he had taken the above policy through the opposite party No.2 i.e. Canara Bank. The deceased went to his fields on 26-11-2009 in the midnight and he slept in the fields. While he was sleeping some snake bitted him. Immediately he went to his house and informed the same to his wife. His wife and relatives went to Kanumukkala Village to take first aid, but due to reeling sensation, he fell down in Bus Stand and shifted to Government Hospital, Dharmavaram. The authorities of Govt. Hospital, Dharmavaram referred to Govt. General Hospital, Anantapur, but he died near Bathalapalli before reaching Anantapur. The complainant made a representation to the opposite parties to settle the claim for a sum of Rs.50,000/- as the deceased was Kishan Credit Card Holder but the opposite parties have not settled the claim and 1st opposite party repudiated the claim without any reasonable ground. Hence this claim to grant the amount, which complainant is entitled as nominee and award costs.
9. The counsel for the 1st opposite party argued that the deceased was not died due to snake bite but he died due to some other reason as per documents FIR, Postmortem Report and Inquest Report, which clearly shows that G.Venkata Naidu died due to snake bite or due to ill-health. It is gives doubt that the death was caused due to snake bite. The counsel for the opposite party No.1 also argued that there is delay in intimating about the death i.e. 200 days after the death. The counsel also argued that the complainant failed to submit A.P.Forensic Science Laborites report and in the said report it clearly shows that there is no poisonous substance in a sample sent for examination by the doctors. The counsel for the opposite party No.1 also argued that there was no eye-witness about the alleged snake bite. The counsel further argued that as per condition No.1 of the policy, the death intimation should be given to the company within 30 days from the date of occurrence, whereas in the present case the company received the complaint more than 200 days after the incident. And as per conditions, the company repudiated the claim rightly and the complainant is not entitled any claim and the complaint is liable to be dismissed against this opposite party.
10. As per the documents filed by the complainant Ex.A1 to A4 the cause of death of G.Venkata Naidu may due to snake bite or due to ill health. The counsel for the complainant stated that the snake bitted in the midnight of 26-11-2009 and he died on 27-11-2009. So the complaint was given to the Police saying that G.Venkata Naidu died due to snake bite or due to ill-health. The opposite party argued that all the documents of the complainant are not supported the case and cause of death due to snake bite. There is lot of discrepancies in the documents to disbelieve that the death was caused due to snake bite. In Ex.A3 inquest report in Column No.15 it was mentioned that “ Eedo vishapurugu katuvalla gani, aroghya parishithithulavalla gani maraninchi vuntadu “ and also Ex.B1 FSL Report no chemical poisonous substance is found for the death of G.Venkata Naidu. The counsel argued that if no chemical poison is found in the dead-body it admitted that the death is not due to snake bite. The counsel for the complainant argued that in Ex.A2 Postmortem Report it found that wound slatents ¼ cm x ¼ cm 2 “ in 1.25 cms gap with wound slatents marks of snake bite. So G.Venkata Niadu died due to snake bite. We are convinced with the arguments of the complainant as per Ex.A2 Postmortem Report and Ex.A3 inquest report that G.Venkata Naidu died due to snake bite as wound slatents were found in the dead body and marks were also found on the dead-body. We are taking into consideration of first portion of Ex.A1 to A4 that G.Venkata Naidu died due to snake bite as the 1st opposite party failed to establish that he died due to ill-health because in all the documents the patient died due to snake bite or due to ill-health. There is no iota of evidence to show that G.Venkata Naidu died due to ill-health. So we are believing the arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant. More over the 1st opposite party argued that no eye-witness was there in the incident. For this we are of the opinion that the incident occurred in the mid-night that too in the fields. While in the fields G.Venkata Naidu was sleeping a snake bitted him and the same was informed to his wife and they immediately shifted him to Govt. Hospital, Dharmavaram. For this we are relying on the judgment reported in 2011 (3) C.P.J. page 282 between United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Vysya Bank Ltd., and another held by Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Rederessal Commission, Chennai. In the above case the son of the complainant died due to snake bite. They have given first aid treatment even he died while he was shifting to Government Hosital. No complaint was lodged with the Police and no documents were filed to prove that his son died due to snake bite. The Hon’ble Commission believed that snake bite is not a crime and no FIR can be lodged against snake. The Hon’ble Commission also observed that when the Bank specifically admitted that the deceased is having account with the Bank and premiums were collected towards Insurance amount. It is enough to prove that the deceased died and policy is in force. Hence this point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party No.2 that the deceased die due to snake bite.
11. POINT NO.2 – The counsel for the complainant argued that the deceased was Kishan Credit Card Policy Holder and policy is in force when the deceased was died and the opposite party No.2 deducted amount from his account towards insurance premium and statement was also filed to that effect. The complainant submitted necessary documents to the opposite party No.2 immediately after the death of her husband. The opposite party No.1 though insured group policy they are denying the liability and repudiated the claim without any ground. Hence there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite party No.1 argued that the death was not occurred due to snake bite and all the documents filed by the complainant gives suspicious about the death itself and the complainant failed to establish the cause of death and it is uncertain. The complainant intentionally not filed FSL report as it was against to the complainant. As per Ex.B4 policy condition No.1 “ Death intimation should be given within 30 days and in the present case there is delay of 200 days about the death intimation. “ It was abnormal delay and it amounts to violation of conditions. Hence the repudiation was rightly done and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1.
12. The opposite party No.2 argued that the deceased was Kishan Credit Card Policy-holder and the Bank deducted the amount from the account of the deceased and the policy was issued as group policy and the deceased was also one of the beneficiaries in the policy and the policy was in force at the time of death. The counsel also argued that immediately the Bank sent necessary documents, which were given by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. The delay is not on the part of the opposite party No.2 and it was in between the complainant and the 1st opposite party. Hence no liability on the part of the opposite party No.2 As per counter and evidence of opposite party No.2, no doubt the deceased was customer to the opposite party –Bank and the Bank deducted the amount from his account and it was sent to the insurance-company along with other beneficiaries and it was group scheme. The 1st opposite party issued policy bearing No.051000/47/09/43/00000345 and policy valid from 03-11-2009 to 12-11-2010. The policy under Ex.B4 is in force at the time of death of the deceased i.e. 27-11-2009. No doubt the deceased was a policyholder and he was member of the Group Insurance Scheme for which premium was deducted. The period is not in dispute. Though the 1st opposite party issued policy repudiated the claim there was delay of 200 days and death should be intimated within 30 days as per condition No.1 of the policy i.e. Ex.B4 “ Upon the happening of any event, which may give, rise to a claim under this policy the insured shall forthwith give notice thereof to the company. Unless reasonable cause is shown the insured within one calendar month after the event, which may give rise to a claim under the policy, give written notice to the company with particulars of the claim. “ It is not the condition attached to the validity or invalidity the claim neither 2nd opposite party nor 1st opposite party has informed all these procedures that the complaint should be filed within one month from the date of death. The period prescribed is not the period of limitation. The 1st opposite party should not repudiate the claim taking advantage that the complainant is an illiterate and ignorant lady. We feel that the legitimate right of the complainant should not be deprived for the delay. We are relying the same judgment which was reported in the year 2011(3) CPJ page 282. In that case the claim made after 14 months of death. The period of 90 days is procedure prescribed for submitting the claim can not be stated that the terms and conditions violated. There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and it is proved. Hence we are relying on the above documents and there is deficiency of service on the part of the 1st opposite party. Hence, this point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the 1st opposite party.
13. POINT NO.3 - In the result, the complaint is allowed and the 1st opposite party is directed to pay a sum assured Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards claim, a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards costs and a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony and the amount shall be payable within one month from the date of this order and the claim against the 2nd opposite party is dismissed.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 25th day of March, 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: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES
-NIL- - NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
1. Ex.A1 – Photo copy of FIR in Cr.No.84/09 of C.K.Palli P.S.
2. Ex.A2 - Photo copy of Postmortem Certificate relating to deceased G.Venkata Naidu
Issued by Civil Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Dharmavaram.
3. Ex.A3 – Photo copy of Inquest relating to deceased G.Venkata Naidu.
party to the complainant.
4. Ex.A4 – Photo copy of final report submitted by the Inspector of Police, C.K.Palli.
5. Ex.A5 - Photo copy of statement of account relating to deceased G.Venkata Naidu
Issued by the 2nd opposite party for the period 01-01-2006 to 07-07-2010.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1
1. Ex.B1 - Attested copy of A.P.Forensic Science Laboratories Report dt.18-03-2010 issued
by Dr.A.Thulasiramudu, Scientific Officer, Hyderabad.
2.Ex.B2 - Original repudiation letter dt.02-09-2010 issued by the 1st opposite party to the
complainant.
3. Ex.B3 - Original Death Certificate relating to deceased G.Venkata Naidu issued by the
Panchayat Secretary, Medapuram Village, Chennekothapalli Mandal, Anantapur
District.
4. Ex.B4 - Certified true copy of Kishan Credit Card Scheme Policy bearing
No.051000/47/09/43/00000345 issued by the 1st opposite party.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT (FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR.
