BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD

FA.NO. 282/  AGAINST C   156/2008

DISTRICT CONSUMER AT SRIKAKULAM

BETWEEN:

1.    Sriram Life Insurance Company Ltd

Rep. by its Branch Manager, branch Office,

Near

Srikakulam.

2.    Sriram Life Insurance Company Ltd

Rep. by   the Divisional Manager,

Divisional office,

D.No1-83-27/1, plot no.1, MIG-53,

Sector -5, MVP Double Road, MVP colony

Visakhapatnam -17.

3.    M/s.

Rep. by its Assistant General Head office 3-6-478, III floor,

Liberty Road,  

4.    Shriram Chits Private Limited

Rep. by its Branch Manager,

Branch office, Upstairs of Sri

Old Bus Stand,

Srikakulam District  

(Impleaded vide IA 12/2010 in CC 156/08

Dated 20.04.2009

            .. Appellants/ Ops 1 to 4

And

Voona

Hindu, aged 48 years, Household duties,

Narasannapeta town and

Srikakulam                                      . Respondent/complainant

Counsel for the Appellants                                    :           M/s. KRR Associates

Counsel for the Respondent                     :           M/s. A. Rama

CORAM:     SRI R. LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

AND

SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

Tuesday, the Twentieth Day of November

TWO THOUSAND TWELVE

Oral Order: (Per Sri

1.            This appeal is directed against the order passed by District Consumer Forum  156 of 2008, dated 02.11.2010 for convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred here under. The gist of the complaint is that one

2.            Ops 1 &2 remained absent and even though op-4 tendered appearance did not choose the file counter. However op-3 filed counter disputing the claim of the complainant and contended that at the time of taken the policy op-3 suggested the life issued to fill the proposal form with correct details regarding his health condition pre-disease existing decease and habits   the risk on the life of assured and issued The complainant who is the wife/nominee decease intimated the opposite party that her husband policy holder died on 28.12.2006 without mentioning the reason for death on their after the opposite parties applied required claim form to the complainant  and requested to submit the claim form at the earliest along with required other documents to the process claim. Since the claim as arisen within a short period of taken policy op company has conducted with its

3.            Complainant and op-3 filed evidence affidavit re-iterating the respecting contention aforesaid Es.A1 to A3, B1-B11 marked. Having heard both sides and considering the material regard the district forum vide impugned orders allowed with complaint directing the opposite parties 1-4 to pay the insurance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant together with interest @12%per   and Rs,2,000/-

4.            Aggrieved with beside order opposite parties 2 to 4 preferred this appeal and mainly contended that a district forum failed to appreciate the fact the decease policy holder obtained the policy suppressing his previous hypertension  during investigation by G. Ram Murthy he understood from local people, Medical attendants that the deceased policy holding having  health problem of HTN( since long time before taking the policy and the family  members of life insured are very much aware of the said  fact and that the diseased suffered with heart attack and was on  regular treatment for the same but none of the family members are willing to disclose the pre health problem of the diseased policy holder and managed the consultant  Doctors for not revealing any information in the said context and that even though the opposite parties have addressed letter dated 16.12.2008, 23.05.2008 and  11.06.2008to furnish his medical report the complaint did not reply the same and  that in such circumstances opposite party vide letter dated 27.06.2008 informed the complainant that the policy claim has been  closed and therefore  order under  appeal is not sustainable and thus prayed allow the appeal set aside the impugned order.

5.            Heard both sides counsel and they also submitted written arguments.

6.            Now the point for consideration is whether order of the District Forum is vitiated either in law or on facts.

7.            and did  not obtain the policy suppressing any such ailments as alleged and therefore questing of submitting medical reports case sheets does not arise and that the same was informed  to the investigator. The so-called investigator did not file any affidavit deposing that such and such person informed him that the deceased was suffering from hypertension during the relevant time. Admittedly the op’s did not file any documentary evidence such as case sheet , prescription , lab reports   prior to taken the policy in such as hospital so as to believe that is suppressed the same and obtained the policy. When according to the complainant the deceased was not at all suffering from hypertension question of her forwarding such documents to the opposite parties does not arise. In fact the hypertension is not deceased and it is a life style. The opposite parties did not discharge their burden in proving that the deceased was suffering with hypertension during the  time. Had the opposite parties proved the same the ruling cited by them reported in 2012 CPR 214 (NC) between LIC Vs. N. P.   Ns.   decisions are not helpful for them. The appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

8.         In the result, the appeal is dismissed conforming the order of the District Forum the parties shall bear their own costs of the appeal.    compliance four weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order.

                                                                                                            MEMBER

                                                                                                            MEMBER

                                                                                                20.11.2012