INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION vs Vaddadi Raja Chaitanya

THE Indian Medical Association, petitioner/ OP, in this case introduced Family Benefit Scheme (FBS) with the aim and objective of providing minimum substantial financial aid to the family members of the said Scheme, in case of Member''s demise and other benefit of the Scheme is to promote life membership of Indian Medical Association.

DR . Srinivasa Murthy, paid Rs.10,000/ - as a Member of Dr. N.Appa Rao Family Security Scheme of Andhra Pradesh State Branch of Indian Medical Association. Dr. Srinivasa Murthy, paid the contribution till he died, on 27.06.2010, leaving behind his Legal representatives, namely, Vaddadi Rama Lakshmi (wife), Vaddadi Raja Chaitanya and Vaddadi Ravo Tej (sons).

THE next date of fraternity contribution bill fell due on 07.07.2010. The first complainant (Wife) informed the OP/petitioner about the death of Dr. Srinivasa Murthy (her husband). The first complainant paid the contribution amount in the sum of Rs.3,406/ - on 29.06.2010, i.e., two days'' after the death of her husband. The complainants were not paid the contribution amount. The defence set up by the petitioner/OP is that since there was default of two days'', therefore, the complainants were not entitled to contribution amount.

A complaint was filed before the District Forum.

BOTH the fora below have decided the case in favour of the complainants.

WE have heard the counsel for the petitioner. He submits that since the amount was not paid on time and there was a default, therefore, the complainants are not entitled to any amount. In support of his case, he has cited an authority of the Hon''ble Apex Court, Deokar Exports Private Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2008 14 SCC 598.

ALL these arguments are lame of strength. This Commission, in its order dated 30.01.2014, (RP 2002 of 2013, titled The Chairman, Family Benefit Scheme, Indian Medical Association Vs. Tadinada Usha Rani), decided the case in favour of the complainant. The said case was also of a Doctor who had become a Member of the Indian Medical Association. In that case, it was held, as under : - "A careful reading of the clause X, para 2 of the scheme, as stated above, indicates that termination of Membership takes place only, if a member does not clear his dues within six months after the demand raised by the Secretary and that also, after issuing a notice under registered cover. In the present case, it is clear, therefore that had the Member lived beyond 15.10.2010, he could have cleared his default by making payment along with late fees. The contention raised by the petitioner that payment of a dead Member cannot be accepted from his legal representatives etc. does not hold ground in view of the fact that the default can be cleared by payment of subscription with late fees. The constitution of the scheme nowhere provides that the payment cannot be accepted from the legal heirs of a dead member. It is also clear that the deceased has been making regular payment of premium since 1992, but because of his sickness from March 2010 onwards, if he could not make the payment of one subscription which was due in September 2010, in time, his family cannot be allowed to suffer just for one default in making the payment and more so, when the provisions exists in the Scheme for accepting the subscription with late fees. The Aims and Objectives of the Scheme very clearly provide that the Scheme has been framed to provide immediate substantial financial aid to the family of the Member of the Scheme on his/her demise. The said objectives shall be absolutely defeated, if a view is taken that just for one default in making payment of subscription and that also because of his sickness and consequential death, the membership stands terminated and the family of deceased is not given the benefit of Fraternity Contribution. The Constitution of the Scheme clearly provided that membership can be terminated only if the payment is not made within six months of demand (with late fees) and that also, after giving a registered notice to the beneficiary".

IN the above said case, it was held that by a single default, on the part of the Member, which was rectified subsequently, cannot be permitted to be made platform for the appellant to repudiate the claim of the nominee of the member. It was also held that the situation of the Scheme, nowhere, provides that the payment cannot be accepted from the legal heirs of a dead Member.

IN the instant case, the complainant''s deceased husband had made the regular payment of the premium. The Constitution of the Scheme clearly provided that Membership can be terminated only if the payment is not made within six months of demand (with late fees) and that also, after giving a registered notice to the beneficiary.

IN the result, we find that the revision petition is frivolous and vexatious and the same is hereby dismissed, with costs in the sum of Rs.10,000/ - imposed under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The said amount be paid by the petitioner, directly to the complainant No.1, by means of a demand draft, in favour of her name, drawn on a nationalized bank, within a period of 90 days'' from the receipt of copy of this order, otherwise, after the expiry of said 90 days'', it will carry interest @ 10% p.a., till its realization.