Haryana

Karnal

CC/199/2015

Reena Lamba Wd/o Ravi Singh Lamba - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Life Insurance Corporation Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Joginder Singh

08 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No.199 of 2015

                                                             Date of instt.:28.08.2015

                                                               Date of decision 8.8.2016

 

Reena Lamba wd/o Shri Ravi Singh Lamba son of Shri Raghubir Singh resident of 245 Ram Nagar, Jagadhari District Yamuna Nagar, now resident of House no.691, Gali no.11, Karan Vihar, Karnal.

    ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. LIC of India, Post Box no.106, Jeevan Parkash, 489 Model Town, Karnal through its Senior Divisional Manager.

2. LIC of India, Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhari Road, opposite Madhu Cinema Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.

                                                                             ………… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Shri Joginder Singh Advocate for complainant.

                    Shri C.J. Wadhwa Advocate for opposite parties.                

                    

 ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that her husband Shri Ravi Singh Lamba (the deceased life assured) obtained Jeevan Saral (with profits) policy no.177458452 from opposite party  no.1, which was to commence in the year 2011. First half yearly installment premium was paid on 15.3.2011 and thereafter the premium installments were regularly paid upto June 2014. The deceased life assured was employed as Junior Engineer in the office of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan at Ambala and he had expired on 24.7.2014 due to heart attack. Post mortem on the dead body was conducted. After his death she lodged claim with the opposite parties and submitted all the relevant documents, but the opposite parties postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, she served legal notice dated 22.6.2015 upon the opposite parties, but the same also did not yield any result. Thereafter, vide letter dated 26.6.2015 the opposite party no.1 asked for submitting report of Forensic Science Laboratory regarding death of the deceased life assured, which was beyond her reach as the report was handed over to the concerned investigating officer of the Police Station where Daily Diary Report/First Information Report was registered. In this way, there was clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, which caused her mental pain, agony and harassment, apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties, who put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form, that the complaint is premature ; that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action and that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant

                   On merits it has been admitted that the deceased life assured obtained policy no.177458452 for assured sum of Rs.7,50,000/- under term and table 165-15-15, which commenced from 28.2.2011 and that as per death certificate he died on 24.7.2014. It has been submitted that as per daily diary report dated 24.7.2014 Jarnail Singh, the brother of the deceased life assured reported that the deceased life assured was absent from duty due to drinking. As per post mortem report, the cause of death was to be given, after receiving the report of Viscera sent for Chemical analysis and the report of heart sent for Histhpopathalogical Examination. Therefore, the claim remained pending for want of reports of chemical analysis and Histhpopathalogical Examination. The claim could be considered only after receiving the said report to the satisfaction of the opposite parties. Letters dated 19.3.2015 and 16.5.2015 were also sent by the opposite parties to the complainant in that regard. As the complainant herself failed to submit the required documents for settlement of the case, the present complaint is still premature. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, her affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties affidavit of Munish Gulati Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R11 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                Admittedly, the deceased life assured had obtained life insurance policy from the opposite parties, which commenced from 28.2.2011 and that he had paid the premiums regularly till his death. He died on 24.7.2007. The complainant being nominee lodged claim with the opposite parties, but claim has not been decided so far. As per the case of the opposite parties, for deciding the claim reports of chemical analysis and Histhpopathalogical Examination are necessary, but the complainant did not submit the same despite letters sent to her.

7.                On the other hand, the complainant has submitted that the copies of the said report were not supplied to her despite best efforts, because such copies were supplied by the concerned Forensic Science Laboratory to the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station.

8.                Thus, it is clear that the claim of the complainant has not been repudiated by the opposite parties, rather the same has been kept pending for want of report of chemical analysis and Histhpopathalogical Examination. The opposite parties have sent letters dated 19.3.2015 and 16.5.2015 asking the complainant to submit the report of Forensic Science Laboratory for processing the claim. Even, in reply to the legal notice served by the complainant and thereafter vide letters dated 28.7.2015, 5.10.2015 and 22.12.2015 the same request was made to the complainant. From these facts and circumstances, it is established that the claim of the complainant could not be decided on account of not submitting the report of Forensic Science Laboratory by the complainant despite repeated letters of the opposite parties. Thus, the present complaint filed by the complainant is premature.

9.                During the course of arguments learned counsel for the complainant has supplied the copy of the report of chemical examiner for Government of Haryana, Karnal to learned counsel for the opposite parties and also placed copy thereof on the record. After obtaining the copy of the report of Forensic Science Laboratory now it is for the opposite parties to decide the claim of the complainant at the earliest.

10.              In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, we direct the opposite parties to decide the claim of the complainant within 45 days from the receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 08.08.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member