BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.

F.A. No.190/2021 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.No.92/2019 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION ADILABAD Between:

Smt. B. Laxmi, W/o. Late. B. Ramesh, Aged about: 39 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Native of Pokkur, R/M Chennur, Telangana State.

…. Appellant/Complainant And

1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Chennur. 2. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Rep.by its Divisional Manager, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

3. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Zonal Manager, Hyderabad (deleted as per IA order dt.26.08.2019).

…Respondents/Opp. parties Counsel for the Appellants/Complainant : M/s. Vijay Kumar Counsel for the Respondents/Opposite Parties : M/s. KRL Sarma QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI K.RANGA RAO - PRESIDING OFFICER-

MEMBER - (JUDICIAL).

&

HON’BLE SMT.R.S.RAJESHREE, MEMBER (NON JUDICIAL).

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FIVE ORDER:(PERHON’BLE SMT. R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER, NON JUDICIAL)

1. This appeal is filed U/s.41 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, by the Appellant/Complainant being aggrieved by the dismissal of her complaint vide order dated 11.02.2021 passed in C.C.No.92/2019 by District Consumer Commission, Adilabad.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as complainant and opposite parties as arrayed in the original complaint.

3. The case of the Complainant is that her deceased husband during his lifetime has taken a life insurance policy bearing No.685061477 and was regularly paying the premium amount. The total sum insurance was Rs.30,000/-. That on 13.01.2012 her husband died due to accident. That the police, Chennur had registered a case vide crime No.04/2012. That the Complainant being the nominee had made a claim before the Opposite Parties by submitting all the required documents such as FIR, complaint etc., That the Opposite Party though paid the basic value of policy, but however, rejected the accidental claim. As such, she got issued a legal notice on 16.07.2018 to the Opposite Parties claiming the accidental death claim. The Opposite Party No.2 replied on 31.07.2018 by repudiating the accidental death claim, such repudiation is nothing but deficiency of service. As such, the complaint was filed before the District Commission seeking the accidental death benefit claim along with interest and compensation.

4. The opposite parties filed their written version while admitting the issuance of policy to the life assured, but however, have taken a preliminary objection that the complaint is barred by limitation. Since, the death of the insured occurred on 13.01.2012 and the complaint was filed in the year, 2018. The Opposite Parties further plead that they have already paid the death claim amount of Rs.33,780/- and that the Complainant is not entitled for the accidental benefit as per the policy terms. Hence, the Opposite Parties had rightly repudiated the accidental death claim. That the Complainant had stated that her husband’s death was caused due to current shock. But, as per the police complaint given by the Complainant the cause of death was not caused due to accident and she had clearly stated in her complaint to police that her husband and his friends hatched a plan and went for hunting wild animals by putting naked GI WIRE to the 11 KV electrical main pole and her husband died as he came into contact with the said wire. That the Complainant had given wrong and illegal version about the cause of death which is breach of law. That the accidental cover is given in case of accidental death, but not when the person himself is negligent and responsible for such accident. As such, this Opposite Parties had rightly rejected the accidental death claim of the Complainant.

4. Before the District Commission, the complainant filed her evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to Ex.A7. Mr. B. Venkataiah, DM (L & HPF) LIC of India, Divisional Manager of Opposite Party No.2 filed his evidence