CHIEF POSTMASTER Vs. RAJAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite parties in C.O.P. No. 93/99 on the file of the District Forum, Cuddalore are the appellants in the appeal.

(2.) THE case of the first complainant was as follows: She is the mother of one Arunachalam (since deceased). He had taken an insurance policy for Rs. 50,000 and the first complainant was the nominee. The premium had been paid and the policy was subsisting on the date of death of Arunachalam on 12.2.1998. She immediately informed the appellants/opposite parties and made a claim. The claim application was forwarded by the Sub -Divisional Inspector (Postal), Sankarapuram to the third opposite party on 30.5.1998. Vide letter dated 9.11.1998, the third appellant requested the first complainant for particulars of treatment given to Arunachalam for the preceding three years and the cause of his death. The 1st complainant immediately sent a copy of the medical certificate marked as Ex. A 19 to the appellants. Between April, 1998 and January, 1999, several reminders, Exs. A11, A14, A16 and A21 were sent to the appellants to expeditiously process the claim. Under the original of Ex. A23, dated 24.2.1999, they sent a legal notice which was followed by a letter dated 30.4.1999, copy of which has been marked as Ex. A26 calling upon the appellants to settle the claim. The appellants repudiated the claim by letter, Ex. A16, dated 23.6.1999 on the ground that the deceased had committed suicide.

(3.) THE District Forum framed a point for determination: whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. On the side of the complainants, Exs. A1 to A34 were marked and on the side of the appellants, Exs. B1 to B20 were marked.