Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
D. Appa Rao, President, M. Shreesha and G. Bhoopathy Reddy, Members
MOHD. AZAM - Appellant
Versus
BIRLA SUNLIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR. - Respondents
Consumer Dispute Nos. 69, 70, 71 and 72 of 2003, C.D. Nos. 8 and 9 of 2004 and 61 of 2007
Decided on : 23-04-2008

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. S. Malla Rao, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Singam Srinivasa Rao, Advocate, for the Respondent

The main legal point established in the judgment is that complex factual positions and disputed questions of fact and law should be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court, and not summarily by way of affidavits in Consumer Fora.

Headnote:
Insurance Policies - Consumer Protection Act - Sections 12, 16, and 17 - The court discussed various insurance policies taken by the deceased and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his death. The insurance companies resisted the claims, citing discrepancies and suppression of material facts by the deceased. The court found that the complex factual position required adjudication by a competent Civil Court and dismissed the complaints, directing the complainants to approach the Civil Court for adjudication.
Fact of the Case:

The deceased had taken multiple insurance policies worth crores of rupees within a year, and the insurance companies resisted the claims, citing discrepancies and suppression of material facts by the deceased. The High Court directed the claimants to approach the Civil Court for adjudication.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the complex factual position required adjudication by a competent Civil Court and dismissed the complaints, directing the complainants to approach the Civil Court for adjudication.
Issues: The issues raised involved complicated questions of fact and law, including the conclusion of a contract, the effect of Section 47 of the Insurance Act, and the suppression of material facts by the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complex factual position required adjudication by a competent Civil Court and dismissed the complaints, directing the complainants to approach the Civil Court for adjudication.
Final Decision: The complaints were dismissed, and the complainants were directed to approach the Civil Court for adjudication. The entire period spent for prosecuting before the Consumer Fora was to be excluded for computation of limitation.

ORDER

D. Appa Rao, President (Oral)- 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

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis