Date of filing:-19/04/2016.
Date of Order:-28/08/2017.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (COURT)
B A R G A R H
Consumer Complaint No.15 of 2016.
Rahul Saraf S/o-Late Pritamlal Saraf, aged about-20(twenty) years.
Kalyani Saraf, W/o-Late Pritamlal Saraf, aged about 37(thirty seven) years, Both are residents of Bargarh,Ward No.4(four), Ramji Mandir Road, Bargarh At/Po/Dist. Bargarh ..... ..... ..... Complainants.
- V e r s u s -
S.B.I. General Insurance Company Ltd, Corporate and Registered Office at “Natraj’’ 101 201,and 301, Junction of Western Express Highway and Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400069, Maharastra.
State Bank of India, represented through It’s Branch Manager, Bargarh Main Branch, Bargarh, Post/Dist-Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties.
For the Complainants:- Sri N.K.Dash, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.1(one):- Sri P.K.Mahapatra, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.2(two):- Sri A.K.Patra, Advocate with other Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r(w).
Dt.28/08/2017 -: J U D G E M E N T :-
Presented by Sri K.P. Mishra, President:-
Brief Facts of The case:-
In pursuance of the Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the Complainants preferred to file this case pertaining to the allegation of deficiencies in service on the part of the Opposite Parties as mentioned here under.
One Pritamlal Saraf died on date 21.07.2014 leaving behind him his son and wife as his legal heir, during his life time he had taken an insurance policy for a sum assured amount of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs)only with the Opposite Party No.1(one) vide Policy No.30966168, and Master Policy No. 143820-0000-00, by paying an amount of Rs 100/-(Rupees one hundred ) only through his S.B.I. Account No.33835444386 of Bargarh Main Branch , for a period of one year from Dt. 16.05.2014 to Dt.15.05.2015.
During the subsistence of his said policy period on Dt.21.07.2014 he died out of an accident occurred in his house while he was sleeping, the wall of his house collapsed suddenly fallen on him due to continuous heavy rain and he was declared dead in the District Head Quarter Hospital Bargarh. Immediately that after an U.D. Case was registered in the Town Police Station Bargarh vide UD Case No.67 and in the process of investigation postmortem was also conducted.
There after the Complainants being the legal heir & the beneficiary of the deceased Pritamlal Saraf made an intimation of claim to the Opposite Parties No.1(one) which was received by them on Dt.11.09.2014, complying all the required documents as per their instruction time to time, but to the utter surprise of the Complainant, the Complainant No.2(two) received a letter from the Opposite Party No.1(one) that their claim petition of the insured amount has been rejected due to non supply of the Vicera Analyser/Chemical Analysis/RFSL testing report. Which amounts to deficiencies in rendering service thus the cause of action arose, and the Complainants have claimed the insurance amount of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs)only and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs)only as compensation for his mental agony and an amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only towards litigation expenses with pendentelite and future interest, for which they have claimed both of the Opposite Parties to be jointly and severally liable. The Complainants have relied on a huge numbers of documents in support of their such claim as follows.
Xerox copy of death certificate of the deceased Pritamlal Saraf.
Xerox copy of P.A Insurance Cover confirmation letter by S.B.I. General Insurance .
Xerox copy letter Dt.15.05.2014 issued by the State Bank of India.
Xerox copy of the letter issued by the General Insurance Company issued in different dates to Rahul Saraf.
Xerox copy of the letters issued by the General Insurance Company to Kalyani Saraf.
Xerox copy of the letter issued by the Complainant No.2(two) to the General Insurance Company Ltd on Dt.04/05/2015.
Xerox copy of F.I.R of U.D.Case No. 67/2014 and final form submitted by Police.
Xerox copy of P.M. report of late Pritamlal Saraf in U.D.Case No. 67 of 2014.
Having gone through the complaint the documents filed by them and on hearing the Advocate for the Complainants, the case prima facie seems to be a genuine one hence admitted the case and on being noticed the Opposite Parties appeared and filed their respective version through their Advocates, the sole averments made by the Opposite Party No.1(one) are all evasive one with a claim as false and fabricated one due to the failure of filing of the required document i.e the vicera test report and due to non compliance of the insurance policy condition by the Complainants, pleaded to justify their repudiation of the claim.
The Opposite Party No.2(two) has also filed his version denying it’s liability claiming it's-self has no liability in any form as has acted as a postal agency only to remit the premium, hence is not liable for any action thereto, hence claims to dismiss the case against it on the ground of mis-joinder of parties.
Having perused the complaint, it’s supporting documents and the version of both the Opposite Parties and hearing the respective counsels of the Parties, we are left with the following points for adjudication of the case.
Whether the case is maintainable in the present form with the documents filed by the Complainants.
Whether the Complainants are entitled to the claim sought for by them.
While considering the question of the maintainability with to the documents filed by Complainant, while delving deep in to the case and it’s relating documents it came to our notice that the Opposite Parties have not denied any where in their version or during the course of arguments disputing the said accident met by the deceased but their only ground of repudiation of the claim is that whether the accident is the cause of the death or not in the absence of the said vicera test, in this context we reffered a lot of reference materials and also the documents filed by the Complainants, we did not find any necessity of the particular vicera test report in such a case where it is clearly evident from all other materials available in the record that the death has been caused by an accidental fall of the wall of the house of the deceased while in a sleeping condition to which police has investigated in to also and in addition to that the doctors has also opined the death is due to compression of the chest resulting to the death, which has been substantiated by the police in it’s final report along with opinion of the doctor that the cause of death of the deceased is due to the fall of wall on him and there is no suspicion of any foul play. Hence we do not find any ambiguity with regard to the cause of death of the deceased. Hence we don’t have other option but to opine that the cause of death of the deceased is due to the accidental fall of wall on him resulting his death due to severe compression over his chest. Hence our views go in favor of the complainant and answered accordingly.
In furtherance to our observation on date 12.09.2014 the Opposite Party No.1(one) has asked for a numbers of documents in which they have not asked for the vicera test report, so after submission of all such documents by the Complainants again in their subsequent letter they have asked for some more documents and failing in submission of those documents, have repudiated the claim, amounts to deficiencies in rendering service and un-fair trade practice because in that case the Opposite Parties had not any sort of bar on going for investigation of their own in stead of asking a mentally disgusted dependents family members to ask for documents one after another, which shows their harassing attitude towards the claimants, which in our honest and judicial view is deficiencies of service, hence our opinion is expressed in favor of the Complainants and answered accordingly.
And so far as the averment made by the Opposite Party No.2(two) with regard to it’s role in the total episode of the case is concerned it has claimed it’s role is limited to that of an agency like post office, limited to remittance of the premium amount to the insurance, in this context it is seen in common public view because the insurance sector is named and style in the name of the S.B.I General Insurance, it is obvious on the part of general public that the same is also and part of the said Bank the Opposite Party No.2(two), furthermore the Opposite Party’s Bankers are also promoting by way of making aware of the scheme of the insurance, more over the letter date.12.09.2014, the Opposite Party No.1(one) one has asked for certain documents contents therein, and among those wanting documents in No.2(two) of the list the dully filled and signed claim form attested by the Authorized official of the Bank, the Opposite Party No.2(two) has also been sought for, from which it is quite but natural to conclude the involvement of the Opposite Party No.2(two) is also their, as such he has rightly been made a party in the case, hence in our view the addition of the Opposite Party No.2(two) can’t be justified as mis-joinder of Parties and our views expressed accordingly in favor of the Complainant.
And while dealing with the question of the entitlement of the Complainants for the insured amount and the compensation amount as they have sought for, in this regard we have already expressed our reasonable and logical views in the foregoing paragraphs that since the premium for insurance amount has been paid and duely received by the Opposite Partties and there has been commitment of deficiencies of service in repudiation of their legal right over the sum assured amount of the insurance claim of the deceased person, we are of the view that the Complainants are entitled to the insurance sum assured amount and the compensation amount too for which both the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable. Hence order follows.
O R D E R
Hence the Opposite Parties are directed jointly and severally to pay the sum assured amount of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees twenty lakhs)only against the insurance and Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only as compensation with interest @ of 9% (nine percent) per annum from the date of filing of the case till the date of this Order, for the mental and physical harassment sustained by the Complainant with in thirty days from the date of the order in default of which an interest @ 16%(sixteen percent) per annum would accrue upon the total amount from the date of filing of the case till realization of the same.
In the result the complaint is allowed against the Opposite Parties, and the order is pronounced in the open forum to-day on Dt.28.08.2017 and accordingly the case is disposed off.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
I agree, I agree,
(Ajanta Subhadarsinee) (Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
M e m b e r(w). M e m b e r(m).
