State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Epili Modulu vs The Senior Divisional Manager,L.I.C. ... on 19 December, 2007
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA:CUTTACK STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA: CUTTACK CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.104 OF 2006 Epili Modulu, W/o. Late Epili Judhisthi, At- Rangunipalli, P.O- Badakhandi, Via- Kanchuru, P.S- Hinjilicut, District- Ganjam. Complainant. -Versus- 1. The Senior Divisional Manager, L.I.C. of India, Division Office, Jeevan Prakash, Khadasingi, Berhampur-760010 (Ganjam). 2. The Branch Manager, L.I.C. of India, Branch Office No.I, Church Road, Berhampur-1, District- Ganjam. 3. The Branch Manager, L.I.C. of India, Branch Office No.II, Aska Road, Berhampur-1, District- Ganjam. Opposite Parties. For the Complainant : M/s. S.L. Patnaik & Assoc. For the Opposite parties : M/s. R.K. Pattnaik & Assoc. P R E S E N T : THE HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE R.K. PATRA, PRESIDENT A N D SHRI SUBASH MAHTAB, MEMBER. O R D E R
DATE: - 19TH DECEMBER, 2007.
Non-settlement of the insurance claim is the grievance of the complainant.
2. The case of the complainant is that she is the widow of Epili Judhisthi. When her husband was alive, he had insured his life by taking three L.I.C. policies. Following his death on 29.11.2003, the opposite parties settled policy bearing no.570630156. When the complainant being the nominee asked for settlement of insurance claim in respect of other two policies, the opposite parties adopted dilly dally method in settling it.
The following two policies under the Jevan Mitra (Triple Cover Endowment Plan) with profit (with accidental benefits) are the subject matter of this complaint. They are as follows:-
Policy Number Sum assured Premium payable Date of commencement 571168237 1,75,000/-
Rs.2,255.00 (quarterly) 15.09.2003 570891916 3,00,000/-
Rs.3,960.00 (quarterly) 13.11.2003
3. The opposite parties have filed written version contending that the life assured was suffering from AIDS but he did not disclose this fact at the time of submission of the proposal.
4. In course of hearing, we examined the complainant. The life insurance agent who processed the policy no.570891916 was also examined.
5. Shri Pattnaik, learned counsel for the opposite parties relying on the affidavit sworn to by Epili Nilamani (father of the life assured) contended that it is a clear case of suppression of material fact with regard to the health in as much as the life assured was suffering from AIDS since two years before his death. The deponent has stated in his affidavit that his son was suffering from AIDS for the last two years and he was attacked with it when he was working as labourer in Mumbai. After detection of AIDS he came back to their village Rangunipalli and he was being taken to Saptagiri Clinic on various occasions for AIDS treatment by Dr.Hrushikesh Mohapatra. Ultimately all efforts failed and he died on 29.11.2003. Shri Pattnaik submitted that the life assured nor his family members had any source of income and with a view to enrich themselves by illegal means had taken the insurance policies with Triple Cover Endowment Plan with accident benefits and the genuineness of the claim under the policies is under investigation and has been referred to the C.B.I. The above submission of Shri Pattnaik would have carried weight if there is no contra evidence. At the time of submission of the proposal his blood was examined by the pathologist who reported as follows:-
EXAMINATION OF BLOOD FOR HIV I & II TEST HIV I & II Negative RESILI Method E L I S A On the basis of the said report and other medical reports, the medical examiner of the Corporation forwarded his case for acceptance. The fact that he was not suffering from HIV is corroborated by the evidence of his widow who deposed that her husband was not suffering from HIV and he died on 29.11.2003 due to accidental fall from the stair case. She produced two pathological test reports concerning herself and her son which were marked as Ext.1 and 2. Both the reports indicate HIV non-reactive. The widow has stated in her evidence that there was strained relationship between her husband and her father-in-law which might have prompted the latter to swear the affidavit that his son was suffering from HIV with a view to deprive her from the insurance claim.
6. Considering the above, we are inclined to hold that the life assured was not suffering from HIV at the time of submission of proposal and therefore question of suppression of material fact with regard to his suffering from AIDS does not arise. We may state here that the life assured died within a fort-night of taking of the second policy. As it is an early claim, the counsel for the complainant conceded to confine the claim to rupees eight lakhs against both the insurance policies.
7. For the reasons mentioned above, we direct the opposite parties to pay to the complainant a total sum of rupees eight lakhs against the claim covered under both the insurance policies by 15.02.2008.
8. The complaint is allowed in part.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA: CUTTACK C.D. CASE NO.60 OF 2002 Suman Agarwal, W/o.
Pramod Kumar Ray, D-14, Kedar Gouri Apartment, Bhubaneswar-2.
Complainant.
-Versus-
1. Utkal Hyundai through its Manager, S-3/61-A, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar-751010.
2. Managing Director, Hyundai Motors India Limited, A-30, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area, Phase-I, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.
3. Sanjay Garg, National Customer Relation Manager, Hyundai Motors India (Ltd.), A-30, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area, Phase-I, Mathura Road, New Delhi.
Opposite Parties.
For the Complainant : M/s.
R.K. Pattnaik & Assoc.
For the Opposite party no.1 : M/s. J. Panda & Assoc.
For the Opposite party nos.2 & 3: M/s. R.R. Sahoo & Assoc.
P R E S E N T :
THE HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE R.K. PATRA, PRESIDENT A N D SHRI SUBASH MAHTAB, MEMBER.
O R D E R Justice R.K.PATRA, PRESIDENT.
DATE: - 28TH NOVEMBER, 2007.
The complainant purchased Hyundai Accent-DLS silver colour car from the opposite party no.1 on 21.02.2001 which was registered as OR-02-R-0099. Her allegation is that from the very start the car gave trouble but opposite party no.1 despite repeated requests neither repaired it nor replaced it with a new one.
2. Opposite parties 1 and 2 have filed separate written versions denying the claim.
3. There is no dispute that the complainant purchased a new car from the opposite party no.1. Besides contending that the complainant is not a consumer, the opposite parties assert that the defects were duly rectified under warranty and the car has been road-tested and the complainant with a view to make monetary gain insisted for replacement of the car with a petrol one.
4. The complainant in paragraph 3 of the complaint says that she purchased the car for self-employment. If the vehicle was purchased for the purpose of running it as taxi thereby earning profits then the complainant cannot be held to be a consumer. But if the complainant uses the vehicle for earning her livelihood it would not be treated as commercial purpose for the purpose of Consumer Protection Act.
There is nothing on record to substantiate the allegation of the opposite parties that the complainant purchased the car for earning profit. In these circumstances, we are inclined to hold that the complainant is a consumer and is entitled to maintain the complaint.
5. The opposite parties assert that there was no manufacturing defect in the car and its performance has been found to be satisfactory.
6. On perusal of the documents available on record, we find that the car was delivered to the complainant on 21.02.2001 (annexure-2). On 16.03.2001, the car was brought to the workshop of opposite party no.1 for the first free service. Repair order (annexure-3) shows that the complainant wanted for general check-up of the car along with check-up of the clutch pedal. Necessary work was carried out and the car was delivered in a good running condition. On 12.05.2001 the vehicle was brought to the opposite party no.1 alleging that its air conditioning was not working. Necessary repairs were carried out including replacement of the rubber O rings.
Other check-up was also done and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant in a good running condition (annexure-4). Thereafter, whenever the car was brought for a repair/service to the work-shop of opposite party no.1, it was carried out free/paid service and after necessary repairs it was delivered in good running condition. On 26.11.2001 the car was brought for repairs. At that time it had recorded 9000 kms. mileage. At the request of the complainant the power steering and FIP pump was duly checked. Necessary work was carried out including fuel injection pump calibration and the car was delivered vide repair order (annexure-5). The opposite party no.1 in letter dated 24.12.2001 (annexure-6) informed the complainant that the car was tested and found roadworthy and it would be further inspected by the Service Engineer who would be visiting very shortly. By letter dated 04.02.2001 (annexure-7) the manufacturer informed the complainant that the East Regional Office at Calcutta had been advised to resolve the issue. On 12.02.2002 the car was again reported to the workshop of opposite party no.1 for running repairs. The repair order was opened when the mileage recorded was 11383 kms. The car was inspected and road tested in presence of the complainant. After thorough examination of the car no problem was noticed. This fact was brought to the notice of the complainant but it was insisted on her behalf for replacement of the car with a petrol one. On 01.03.2002 the car was again brought to the workshop for running repairs. The repair order was opened and the mileage recorded was 11,818 kms. At the request of the complainant, necessary work was carried out and fuel injection pump was changed under warranty. On 31.03.2002 the vehicle was again brought and by that day its mileage was 12,000 kms. Necessary check-up was done but no problem was noticed. The complainant however purposely left the car at the opposite party no.1s workshop without taking it. On 09.04.2002 the opposite party no.1 wrote to the complainant that necessary repairs of the car had been done and the vehicle had been tested in the presence of HMIL Engineer and found roadworthy and requested to take delivery of the car (annexure-8). Thereafter the car was again road tested by Sanjay Patra, Engineer of Hyundai Motor India Limited. The complainant was called for a joint trial and the car was road tested in her presence. The performance of the car was found to be OK but with some ulterior motive she refused to take delivery of the car and wanted for replacement with a petrol car. On 23.04.2002, the complainant was requested to take delivery of the car which was inspected and road tested on 11.04.2002 and found to be in a good running condition. But no steps were taken to take delivery of the car. From the above, we have no hesitation to hold that there was no deficiency in service by the opposite parties.
Whenever defects were noticed they were duly attended and rectified and the car was made road worthy and for the reasons best known to the complainant despite repeated requests she did not take delivery of it. The complainant does not seem to have filed the complaint bonafide.
7. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find merit in this complaint which is dismissed.