BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
Friday, 05th May 2017
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 85 / 2016
M. Lakshmi Narasamma, W/o Late M.V. Vijaya Kumar,
aged about 47 years, Hindu, Housewife,
Residing at 36/175-7-1, Viswasanthi Nagar,
Chinna Chowk, Kadapa city. ………… Complainant.
Vs.
1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Rep. by its
Branch Manager, Kadapa, R.S. road, Kadapa City,
Policy No. 656398495.
2. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Rep. by its
Branch Manager, Guntakal Branch, Guntakal Town,
Anantapur District.
3. The Senior Divisional Personal Officer,
South Central Railway, Guntakal (P&M), Anaantapur district.
….. Opposite parties.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 20-4-2017 in the presence of Sri V. Eswara Reddy, Advocate for Complainant and Sri D. Lakshminarayana, Advocate for Opposite parties 1 & 2 and Sri K. Guru Murthy, Advocate for Opposite party No. 3 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the Opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay policy amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- with premium installment of Rs. 5,502/- with interest @ 12% p.a. for the death of Complainant’s husband, to pay 20,000/- for mental agony and deficiency of service and to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of this complaint to the Complainant.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are that the Complainant’s husband M.V. Vijayakumar, worked in Railway Department as CHCOMLK Commercial in O.P.3 office. During his life time he insured his life for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- by paying monthly policy premium amount of Rs. 917/- for each month. Later the Complainant’s husband gave letter to O.P.3 to deduct premium of Rs. 917/- from his salary and send the same to O.P.1 office. He also intimated to O.P.1 to receive the premium amount every month from O.P.3. O.P.1 transferred her husband’s policy to O.P.2 office for convenient and for receiving monthly installments. But O.P.3 has not send the premium for May 2014, June 2014, July 2014 and August 2014 premium installments to O.P.2. However, O.P.3 paid premium for the months September 2014, October 2014, November 2014 and December 2014 to O.P.2 and the same was received and credited to the Complainant’s husband policy account. O.P.2 not intimated that the premium from May 2014 to August 2014 not paid by O.P.3 till his death. Due to ill health on 10-12-2014 the Complainant’s husband, who is policy holder admitted in Manipal Hospital, Bangalore and died. The Complainant intimated death of her husband and claimed benefits under the policy for the month of January 2015. But O.P.1 & 2 not settled the claim. On the other hand O.P.2 intimated the Complainant’s policy was lapsed for not paying four months premium amount. O.P.2 received policy premiums from September 2014 to December 2014 from O.P.3. Hence, the policy was inforce and valid at the time of death of the policy holder. Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties for not settling the claim of Complainant, regarding death benefits of the policy holder. The Complainant issued legal notice on 01-4-2016 to the Opposite parties to pay policy amounts to her. But not settled the claim. O.P.2 issued reply notice on 8-4-2016 with false allegations. Hence, the complaint for the above reliefs.
3. O.P.1 filed counter / written version and the same has been adopted by O.P.2.
4. O.P.1 admitted issuance of subject policy in favour of deceased husband of the Complainant M.V. Vijaya Kumar and its transfer to Guntakal Branch for the purpose of convenience and the policy holder opted payment through deduction from his salary from O.P.3 office. This opposite party has sent authorization letter to O.P.3 submitted by policy holder to O.P.3 on 6-5-2014 but the premium amounts for the months of May 2014 to August 2014 was not received. However, the premium amounts for the months of September 2014 to November 2014 were received.
5. It is further averred, since the premium amount from May 2014 to August 2014 were not received the decision regarding the claim of Complainant was pending and it was decided that nothing is payable to the claimant under subject policy as the policy was in lapsed condition by the time of death of her husband and same was communicated to the Complainant on 24-4-2016. The policy holder utterly failed to pay payments of monthly premium amounts regularly did not pay in the months of May 2014 to August 2014. So the claim was rejected due to non-payment of premium amount resulting to the lapse of the policy as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of this Opposite party corporation and the compliant is liable to be dismissed to the Opposite parties1 & 2 with exemplary costs.
6. O.P.3 filed counter / written version denying the allegations admitting that M.V. Vijaya Kumar husband of Complainant was railway employee as pleaded and was in service and died on 10-12-2014. It is further averred that the Complainants husband was working as Chief Commercial Clerk at Kadapa Railway Station, submitted his requisition in the month of September 2014 for recovery of his LIC premium of Rs. 917/- p.m from his salary and send the same to O.P.1 office. Accordingly, this O.P. recovered the LIC premium from September 2014 to November 2014 at Rs. 917/- and the same was forwarded to LIC through NEFT till his death. The recovery amounts are communicated in the pay slip of employee received by him every month. The allegations of this Opposite party has not send the premiums for the months of May 2014 to August 2014 does not arise as no requisition was made by the deceased employee. So the question of deducting amounts for those months does not arise. There is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of this opposite party. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties as claimed by the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed against the Opposite parties?
- To what relief?
8. On behalf of parties no oral evidence has been let in. But on behalf of the complainant Exs. A1 to A6 documents are marked and on behalf of O.P.1 Exs. B1 to B5 are marked. No documents are marked on behalf of O.P.3.
9. Heard arguments on both sides and considered the pleadings, documentary evidence placed by both parties.
10. Point Nos. 1 & 2. Learned counsel for Complainant contended that the Opposite parties have admitted that the LIC premium was deducted for the months from September 2014 to November 2014 and the policy holder i.e. Complainant’s husband died on 10-12-2014. So by the date of death of the deceased policy under Ex. A1 was inforce and it was valid. Therefore, the Opposite parties 1 & 2 cannot contend that the premiums were not paid for the months of May 2014 to August 2014. So the Complainant is not entitled for the death claims of deceased, as such the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs as there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties 1 & 2 in settling the claim.
11. Per contra it is contended on behalf of Opposite parties 1 & 2 that the premiums for the months of May 2014 to August 2014 not paid by the Complainant or Complainant’s husband or O.P.3 and the policy became lapsed. Therefore, the Complainant is not entitled for the claim hence, rejected. Therefore, no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite parties 1 & 2.
12. O.P.3 contended that as per requisition submitted by Complainant’s husband premium was deducted from September 2014 to till his death. So, no deficiency in service on his part.
13. It is admitted between the parties that the Complainant’s husband was a Railway Employee and took policy under Ex. A1 on 22-3-2014 and paid premium at Rs. 917/- p.m initially for the months from March, April 2014 by him and thereafter by deducting from his salary for the months from September 2014 to November 2014.
14. The dispute between the parties is that the premium was not paid by the policy holder from May 2014 to August 2014. The Complainant’s husband i.e. policy holder in this case dies on 10-12-2014 admittedly due to ill health. The same is proved by Ex. A3. As seen from Ex. A2 status report the policy bearing No. 656398495 in the name of Complainant’s husband premium amount for the months of May, June, July and August 2014 totaling Rs. 3,668/- not paid and the same is due. According to Complainant her husband intimated to O.P.3 to deduct from his salary he had deducted the same and send it to O.P.1 but no such proof is filed. According to O.P.3 the policy holder gave requisition only in September 2014, so deducted premium from his salary and send it to O.P.1 till his death.
15. It is evident that the premium for the months of September, October and November 2014 were deducted from the salary of policy holder and send it to O.P.1 and the same was accepted O.P.1. The policy holder died on 10-12-2014. Since the premium for the months September, October and November 2014 were accepted by O.P.1 in respect of policy of Complainant’s husband the same cannot be said in lapsed condition. If at all the premiums for the months May 2014 to August 2014 were not paid the same would have been intimated to the Complainant and collected. Simply some premium installments were due for the previous months the policy cannot be said in lapsed condition having, accepted the premiums for the later months i.e. in this case from September 2014 to November 2014. Therefore, we are of the considered view that even if any installments from May 2014 to August 2014 is due by the policy holder totaling Rs. 3,668/- the said amount might have been deducted from policy amount of Ex. A1 policy and paid the balance to the Complainant. But no such effort was made by O.P.1 & 2 in favour of the Complainant in this case. Therefore, we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties 1 & 2 in this case and Complainant is entitled for the death benefits due under the policy No. 656398495 deducting premium amounts due towards installments. Accordingly, points 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the Complainant.
16. Point No. 3. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed, directing the Opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) deducting Rs. 3,668/- (premium installments due by the policy holder for the months of May 2014 to August 2014) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 21-11-2016 till realization to the Complainant and shall also pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards mental agony and Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards costs of the complaint to the Complainant, within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. The rest of the claim of the Complainant is disallowed. Complaint against O.P.3 is dismissed without costs
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 5th day of May 2017
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Opposite party: NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 P/c of insurance policy copy bearing No. 656398495, dt. 22-3-2014.
Ex. A2 P/c of status report of policy No. 656398495.
Ex. A3 P/c of M.V. Vijaya Kumar policyholder death certificate dt. 11-2-2015.
Ex. A4 Office copy of legal notice dt. 1-4-2016.
Ex. A5 Reply notice issued by R2 to till Complainant counsel dt. 8-4-2016.
Ex. A6 Postal R.P. receipts 3 Nos. and acknowledgement cards 3 Nos.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite party No.1 : -
Ex. B1 P/c of letter authorization of the deceased policy holder M.V. Vijaya Kumar
Ex. B2 P/c of addendum to the application for insurance under salary savings
Scheme dt. 20-3-2014 submitted by the deceased policy holder
M.V. Vijaya Kumar.
Ex. B3 P/c of letter dt. 15-4-2014 send by R1 to R3 by forwarding authorization
letters of employee policy holders.
Ex. B4 P/c of confirmation obtained from professional courier service, Kadapa in
proof of dispatch of item No. 3 letters.
Ex. B5 P/c of letter dt. 24-4-2016 communicated to the claimant about the
rejection of her claim.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite party No.3 : -
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
1) Sri V. Eswara Reddy, Advocate for Complainant.
2) Sri D. Lakshminarayana, Advocate for O.Ps 1 & 2.
3) Sri K. Guru Murthy, Advocate for O.P. 3.
B.V.P
