KOTA ATCHUTA RAO vs Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India

THIS appeal has been directed against the consolidated judgment passed by the District Forum, Koraput, Jeypore in C.D. Case Nos. 58/93, 92/93 and 95/93.

THE complainants in each of these cases were nominees in respect of three policies obtained by the same person, namely, Kota Kama Raju. Each of the policies were for Rs. 30,000/- covering the risk of his life. It is alleged that the life assured was paying premium regularly in respect of the aforesaid three policies till his death. THEir case is that the Life Insurance Corporation (L.I.C.) agreed that in case of the death of the life assured, they will pay the savings contribution, face value of the policy and bonus to the nominees of the life assured. THE policy holder died on 3.12.1990. Before his death he had taken a loan of Rs. 10,000/- from each of the policy. After his death the complainants in the aforesaid cases filed claim applications which after being considered, each of the complainant were paid as nominee of the life assured a sum of Rs. 32,255/- adjusting the loan amount of Rs. 10,000/- with interest against each of the aforesaid policies. THE complainants in those cases have however alleged that the full amount payable under the policy have not been paid to them. Incidentally they also alleged that there was delay in settlement of the amount. THE Life Insurance Corporation who was opposite party in each of these cases, has however not disputed that late Kota Kama Raju obtained three policies of Rs. 30,000/- each and was granted three policies. THE Life Insurance Corporation asserts that they had paid all that is payable as per the terms and conditions of the contract of the policy after deducting the loan amount with interest and there is no further amount payable to any of the nominees of the deceased policy holder. An objection was raised by the Life Insurance Corporation before the District Forum that these complaint cases are not maintainable inasmuch as on the same cause of action three other cases filed by the nominees of the late Kota Kama Raju registered as C.D. Case Nos. 41/91, 42/91 and 43/91 which were withdrawn. THEir contention was that the cases having once been withdrawn, the same cannot be filed again and the effect of withdrawal with the permission of the Forum absolutely bars the complainants from bringing fresh complaints. THE District Forum examined the aforesaid points in great detail and came to the conclusion that after withdrawal of the previous cases under Order 23, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. are not available to be refiled as no leave had been granted to them for filing new cases on the same cause of action. THE District Forum, thereafter, discussed the matter also on merits and held that the complainants in all these cases are not entitled to any financial benefit or relief as claimed. At the hearing we reverse the order of consideration by examining as to whether there is merits in the claim of the complainants in the aforesaid cases. Our approach is that if the claimants are entitled to the reliefs under the facts and circumstances of the case, it must not be fair to reject their complaints petitions on a technical ground under Order 23, Rule 1, C.P.C. which in term did not apply to the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. Having gone through the terms and conditions of the policy, copy of which is available in the records of the District Forum, we are unable to appreciate that the complainants were entitled to anything more than whatsoever calculated by the Life Insurance Corporation. In our considered opinion they are not entitled to any relief in any of the aforesaid cases. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal and hence, the same is dismissed. Mr. Biswanath Rath, Member-I agree. Mrs. Mrinalini Padhi, Member-I agree. Appeal dismissed.