Decided on April 23,2008

MOHD.AZAM Appellant
Birla Sunlife Insurance Co. Ltd Respondents


D.APPA RAO, J. - (1.) THE complainants are nominees and assignees of the policy holder, late Mohd. Mohtesham Azmi. Their case in brief is that late Mohd. Mohtesham Azmi a business man had taken various policies from the opposite parties/insurance companies after completing the formalities. As per the directions of the insurance companies premia were paid. They were accepted by the insurance companies, and policies were issued. Various details of the policies and nominees/assignees as the case may be are mentioned herein along with its case No. C.D. No. 69/2003 1. Name of Insurance Company Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 2. Policy No. 27787 3. Date of Policy 8.8.2002 4. Sum assured Rs. 70,48,758.68 5. Premium Rs. 2,98,900 (Quarterly) 6. Nominee/LR/ Assignee Mohd. Azam (Father) 7. Claim Rs. 70,48,758.68 C.D No. 70/2003 1. Name of Insurance Om Kotak Mahindra Life Company Insurance Co. Ltd. 2. Policy No. 13207 3. Date of Policy 1.4.2002 4. Sum assured Rs. 75 lakh 5. Nominee/LR/ Assignee Mohd. Azam (Father) 6. Claim Rs. 75 lakh C.D. No. 71/2003 1. Name of Insurance Company Om Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 2. Policy No. 11139 3. Date of Policy 1.4.2002 4. Sum assured Rs. 25 lakh 5. Nominee/LR/ Assignee Mohd. Azam (Father) 6. Claim Rs. 25 lakh 7. Related Benefits Rs. 10 lakh accident benefit. C.D. No. 72/2003 1. Name of Insurance Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Company Ltd. 2. Policy No. 62849 3. Date of Policy 7.3.2003 4. Sum assured Rs. 1 Crore 5. Premium Premium paid by cheque on25.3.2003 6. Nominee/LR/ Assignee Mohd. Azam (Father) 7. Claim Rs. 1 Crore. C.D No. 8/2004 1. Name of Insurance Company LIC of India. 2. Policy No. 646119629 3. Date of Policy 28.1.2002 4. Sum assured Rs. 20 lakh 5. Nominee/LR/ Assignee Mohd. Mahmood (Assignee) (Original nominee is Mahmooda Begum (wife). 6. Claim Rs. 20 lakh with related benefits. C.D. No. 9/2004 1. Name of Insurance Company Allianz Bajaj Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 2. Policy No. 356730 3. Date of Policy 14.5.2002 4. Sum assured Rs. 20 Lakh+Accident benefit, Rs. 10 lakh +Term rider benefit of Rs. 20 lakh. 5. Nominee/LR/ Assignee Smt. Afwan Anif Smt. Asma Basharat Sisters (Assignees/Nominees) 6. Claim Rs. 50 Lakh C.D. No. 61/2007 1. Name of Insurance Company Om Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Co. Ltd. The life assured had taken a life insurance policy for Rs. 1 crore for a term of 30 years on 15.1.2003 and issued a cheque for Rs. 29,606 towards premium which was illegally returned stating that he had not taken any policy on his life but his son has taken a policy for Rs. 1 crore. Since there was concluded contract between the deceased and O.P. and the insurance commenced on 22.1.2003 the date of receipt of amount towards first premium and the rejection of the proposal for want of medical certificate is illegal since it was after demise of his son.
(2.) WHILE sons in the early hours of 31.3.2003 when Mohd. Mohtesham Azmi and his wife Mahmooda Begum were travelling in a Maruti van from Hyderabad to Jadcherla on National Highway No. 7 and by the time they reached Nandigama X roads the driver of the lorry bearing No. AET 6187 dashed against the Maruti Van due to which both of them died on the spot. A case in crime No. 74/2003 under Section 304A, IPC by Police Station, Kothur was registered against the driver of the lorry. After investigation, the police authorities fild charge sheet at Shadnagar. The complainants viz., father, daughters being the nominees are entitled to the amounts. They had promptly intimated about the deaths and preferred claims for the amounts covered under the policies for which the opposite parties did not respond on which they got issued registered notice for which opposite parties issued replies repudiating the claims on false and frivolous grounds. Though the opposite parties got throughly enquired into the matter and obtained the investigation report confirming the death of the insured as well as his wife in the motor vehicle accident, in order to avoid payment, they came up with the plea that the identity of the deceased was not confirmed. They requested the family members to collect the remains of the deceased in order to get DNA test. Since the complainants and the deceased hail from an orthodox Muslim family and if the remains of the dead body have to be removed from the burial for DNA test which is against the Muslim religion, it would naturally effect the family prestige resulting damage to the future of their kith and kin. There is no justification on the part of opposite parties to insist for DNA test. Since there was deficiency in service and the insurance companies are neligent in not settling their claims they came up with these complaints under Sections 12, 16 and 17 of the Consumer Protection Act claiming amounts covered under the policies + bonus and other benefits together with compensation for mental agony and costs.
(3.) THE opposite parties resisted the complaints on various grounds. The sum and substance of their pleas can be summarised as follows: While admitting that they had issued various insurance policies mentioned in the complaints they alleged that the assured had taken some more policies for which the complaints were filed before the Dist. Forum, Hyderabad and Mahaboobnagar. They are C.D. No. 408/2004 (Dist. Forum -III, Hyderabad), C.D. No. 406/2004 Dist. Forum -III, Hyderabad), C.D. 15/2004 (Dist. Forum, Mahaboobnagar), C.D. 16/2004 (Dist. Forum, Mahaboobnagar), C.D. No. 546/2005 (Dist. Forum -I, Hyderabad) C.D. No. 545/2005 (Dist. Forum -I, Hyderabad) and C.D. No. 407/2004 (Dist. Forum -I, Hyderabad).;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.