State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt.V.Venkatalakshmamma Anantapur ... vs Primary Agricultural Cooperative ... on 18 March, 2009
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD. FA.No.1598/2006 against CC.No.11/2006 District Consumer Forum, Anantapur. Between: Smt.V.Venkatalakshmamma, W/o.late Nagabhushana, Aged about 40 years, R/o.Neelavandlapalli Village, Nallacheruvu Mandal, Anantapur Dist. Appellant/Complainant. And 1.The Secretary, Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Ltd. Nallacheruvu Village and Mandal, Anantapur Dist. 2.The General Manager,, Anantapur District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. Subash Road, Anantapur. 3.The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. R.F.Road, Anantapur. Respondents/Opp.Parties. Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.N.Aswartha Narayan. Counsel for the Respondents : M/s.O.Manohar Reddy and A.Jaya Raju (for R.1and R.2) Smt.I.Maamu Vani (for R.3) QUORUM: THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, HONBLE PRESIDENT, SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON'BLE LADY MEMBER, AND SRI K.SATYANAND, HONBLE MALE MEMBER.
WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND NINE.
Oral Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Lady Member) *******
1. Aggrieved by the order dt.4.11.2006 in CC.No.11/2006 on the file of District Consumer Forum, Anantapur, the complainant preferred this appeal.
2. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is the wife of late Nagabhushana, who availed loan from opposite party No.1 and got his life insured with opposite party No.3 through opposite party No.1 under Janatha Personal Accident Insurance Policy for Rs.1,00,000/- by paying Rs.10/- towards insurance premium. Complainant is the nominee under the said policy. The complainant submits that the life assured died of a mad dog bite on 26.3.2001 while undergoing treatment. The dog bite injury was received on 18.11.2000. He was treated in Government Hospital, Kadiri as an out patient, and thereafter he was admitted in Dr.Prabhakara Naidu Hospital at Kadiri for better treatment, and ultimately died on 26.3.2001. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 and informed about the death of her husband and also submitted relevant documents.
Opposite party No.1 passed a resolution and informed opposite party No.2 for settlement of claim, vide letter dt.4.4.2001. Opposite party No.2 also informed the same to opposite party No.3, but there is no response from opposite party No.3 with respect to settlement of claim. Thereafter, the complainant got issued legal notice on 28.5.2005, but there was no response.
After receipt of legal notice, opposite party No.3 replied on 3.6.2006 stating that no claim is pending with them. On 15.7.2005, opposite party No.3 gave another reply requesting the complainant to send Xerox copies of the documents available with them. Even after submission of these documents, they did not settle the claim.
3. Opposite party No.1 filed counter stating that late Nagabhushana was a member and loanee of the Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society Ltd. Thavalamarri and not a member and loanee of Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society, Nallacheruvu in the year 2000. Subsequently, this society was merged into Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society, Nallacheruvu in July, 2005 and there is no cause of action against this Society.
4. Opposite party No.2 filed counter stating that the complainant has not sent any claim through this opposite party and that the death of late Nagabhushana was intimated to opposite party No.3 by opposite party No.1 on 04.04.2001 and there is direct correspondence between the complainant and opposite party No.3 through opposite party No.1 and there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2.
5. Opposite party No.3 filed counter stating that late Nagabhushana died on 26.3.2001 and the present complaint ought to have been filed within two years from the date of death , whereas the present complaint was filed on 6.12.2005 and as such it was barred by limitation. It further contended that neither the complainant nor opposite parties 1 and 2 complied the requirements of the policy in spite of several reminders and therefore, they closed the claim as No claim. The complainant also did not prove that the deceased died due to a mad dog bite and did not examine any doctor or file any medical treatment record to prove that this is a case of dog bite and in the absence of any relevant record there is no deficiency of service on their behalf.
6. The District Forum based on the evidence adduced ie. Exs.A.1 to A.12 and B.1 to B.13 dismissed the complaint.
7. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal. It is not in dispute that the husband of the complainant had taken a Janatha Personal Accident Insurance Policy valid from 1.2.2001 to 31.1.2002 for Rs.1,00,000/- by paying Rs.10/- towards insurance premium, wherein the complainant is the nominee. It is also not in dispute that the complainants husband died on 26.3.2001.
The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the complaint is barred by limitation. We observe from the record that the Insurance Company repudiated the claim only on 24.6.2002 and thereafter through their reply notice dt.3.6.2005 and 15.7.2005 and this complaint was filed on 6.12.2005. Therefore, we are of the considered view that it is not barred by limitation. The second contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that there is absolutely no proof on the record to state that the deceased died due to dog bite.
Ex.A.1 is dated 28.3.2001 which is said to have been issued by Dr.P.Prabhakar Naidu stating that the deceased had gone to Government Hospital, Kadiri for treatment and after ten days he came back on 28.11.2000 with a complaint of hydrophobia, which was not treated by him.
Ex.A.2 is the certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer stating that the deceased died due to dog bite on 26.3.2001. Ex.A.3 is the certificate issued by the Government Hospital, Kadiri that the deceased was treated as out patient for a mad dot bite on 18.11.2000. It is pertinent to note that Ex.A4 was issued by the President, Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society Ltd. Tavalamarri in which it is stated that the deceased died due to dog bite and was directed to be buried in the presence of the elders of the village. We are of the considered view that these documents establish that the deceased died due to dog bite. Even after opposite party No.1 forwarded the claim to opposite party No.3 there is no response and only after the complainant got issued legal notice on 28.5.2005, opposite party No.3 replied stating that the claim is baseless and is closed as No claim. Since the repudiation of the claim on the ground that there is no basis to state that the deceased died due to dog bite is unjustified, we may term it as deficiency of service on the part of Insurance Company, the third opposite party.
8. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside directing the Insurance Company, the third opposite party to pay the policy amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of repudiation ie. 3.6.2005 till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.3,000/-. The case against opposite parties 1 and 2 is dismissed without costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT(DAR) LADY MEMBER(MS) MALE MEMBER(KS) Dt:18.03.2009.