LAWS(APCDRC)-2010-6-17

G. MALOJI RAO Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA

Decided On June 14, 2010

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the complainant against the order of the District Consumer Forum-II, Hyderabad, dated 20.11.2009 in CC.No.384/2009.

(2.) The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant has taken a policy called as Jeevan Kishore with profits in the name of his son, G.Giridhar on 20.09.1991. The sum assured was Rs.15,000/-. He agreed to pay Rs.920.30 ps towards premium by 28th March every year. The maturity date of the policy was 28.03.2007. On 01.08.2008 the complainant submitted the original policy along with discharge form to the opposite party for making the payment under the policy. The complainant alleges that after several visits, the opposite party intimated that a cheque for Rs.30,000/- was sent to his residential address by speed post on 18.08.2008. He further alleges that there was no such speed post received, nor response from the opposite party. He submits that despite several requests as well as letters, the opposite party did not make any payment. Hence, the complaint seeking directions to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards payment of the policy amount together with interest at 21% per annum from 28.03.2007 i.e. from the date of maturity of the policy till realization, besides compensation of Rs.5,000/-and costs.

(3.) The opposite party filed its written version contending that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party. They submit that on submission of original policy along with discharge form, they had sent the maturity amount by way of cheque through speed post and it was received by the complainant. They further submit that they never received any letter from the complainant. However, subsequent to the notice they addressed letter to the postal department requesting it to enquire into the matter as a special case. After due verification they issued a fresh cheque to the complainant and it was received by him. Hence, there was no deficiency in service.