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.) ON the materials placed, the District Forum found that appellants/opposite parties had failed to prove that the first complainants son had committed suicide as could be seen from Ex. A19, a certificate issued by the Doctor that there was no withholding of information by the first complainants son from the opposite parties about his medical history that the third party affidavit, Ex. B20, relied on by the appellants, had been obtained by the appellants after the complaint had been filed and the deponent was a postal employee and the contents are not true that the repudiation by the appellants was wrong and that the appellants were liable to pay the claim amount of Rs. 50,000 together with interest @ 18% from the date of repudiation till date of payment, a sum of Rs. 2,000 towards compensation and Rs. 1,000 towards cost of the complaint.