Back
Before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
(constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)
of Telangana, Eruvaka Building, Khairathabad at Hyderabad
FA NO.454 OF 2018 AGAINST CC NO.13 OF 2017
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT COMMISSION, KHAMMAM
Between:
Exide Life Insurance Company Limited,
The Manager, Kothagudem Town,
Bhadradri-Kothagudem district.
1) 2)
Exide Life Insurance Company Limited,
The Manager, The Claims Review Committee,
1st Floor, Gold Hills, Square No.690,
Houser Road, Negurhubli,
Bangalore, Karnataka State - 560 068.
Appellants/Opposite parties
And
Chimata Ramana @Ramanamma
@Inumula Ramana W/o Chimata Pullaiah,
aged 50 years, Occupation : Coolie,
R/o H.No.2-36, Singhabupalem,
Kothagudem mandal, Khammam district.
..Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for the Appellants
Smt R.Aruna
Counsel for the Respondent
Sri M.Hari Babu
CORAM
******
Hon'ble Sri Justice MSK Jaiswal
President
and
Smt Meena Ramanathan
Member
Friday, the Second day of
December Two Thousand Twenty Two
***
This is an appeal preferred by the Opposite parties aggrieved by
the orders dated 24.04.2018 passed by the District Consumer Forum,
Khammam in CC No. 13/2017 in allowing the complaint and directing
the Opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,00,500/- towards insurance claim and
Rs.1,00,000/- towards Rider sum assured, in total Rs.2,00,500/- with
interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e., 31.12.2014
and further to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs, to the Complainant, within
a period of one month.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed
in the complaint.
3) It is the case of Complainant that she is the wife of one Chimata
Pullaiah, who obtained the policy bearing No.02976335 on 10.09.2014
from the Opposite parties by paying the premia of Rs.12,600/ for an
assured sum of Rs.1,00,500/-, wherein, the Complainant was shown as
nominee. On 01.10.2014, the policy holder got bitten by snake on his
right leg ankle during agricultural operations, which was informied by
the neighbouring land owner Gugulothu Veeraiah and thereafter he was
shifted to Government Area Hospital, Kothagudem where the duty
doctors attended him and informed that he died due to snake bite.
4) Immediately the Complainant made claim with the Opposite
parties, who in turn, vide letter dated 31.12.2014 have repudiated the
claim on the ground of suppression of material fact that the deceased life
assured died due to Miliary Pulmonary Tuberculosis. Thereafter, the
Complainant made application for reviewing the claim, which could not
fructify. Hence, filed the complaint complaining deficiency of service on
the part of the Opposite parties with a prayer to direct the Opposite
parties to pay Rs. 1,00,500/- towards sum assured; Rs.1,00,000/-
towards accidental death benefit; to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards other
benefits, together with interest@ 12% per annum from the date of death
of the life assured till payment and costs of the complaint.
5) Opposite parties filed their written version admitting issuance of
the policy in question for an assured sum of Rs.1,00,500/- and rider
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the duration of 44 years with paying term as 16
years.
However, they contended that the complaint is barred by
limitation and that the deceased life assured was suffering from Miliary
Pulmonary Tuberculosis with COPD and severe breathlessness,
for
which, he took treatment prior to the date of proposal, which amounts to
suppression of material fact.
Hence, they repudiated the claim which
cannot be termed as deficiency of service and hence prayed to dismiss
the complaint with costs.
During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to
6) prove her case, the Complainant filed her affidavit evidence as PW1 and
got marked the documents Ex.A1 to A9.
On behalf of the Opposite
parties, one Chidanand, their Manager-Legal filed his affidavit evidence
as RW1 and got ma
