BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.176 of 2013
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 09.04.2013
DATE OF ORDER: -31.05.2017
Smt. Krishna Devi widow of Shri Satbir Singh son of Shri Giani Ram, resident of village Jamalpur, Tehsil Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani.
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- The Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office at SCD 3, 4 and 5 Sector 1, Rohtak through its Divisional Manager.
- Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Office, Opposite Civil Hospital, Hansi through its Branch Manager.
- Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Office, Near Minici Sectt. Bhiwani, through its Branch Manager.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE :- Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member
Present: - Shri Satender Ghangas, Proxy Counsel of
Shri Sanjay Sheoran, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Mukesh Jangra, Advocate for the OPs.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that her husband namely, Satbir Singh (now deceased) had obtained insurance policies and each policy was Rs. 1,00,000/- and she was nominated as nominee in the policy. It is alleged that unfortunately on 06.11.2005 the husband of the complainant died. It is alleged that the complainant informed to the Ops for getting the insurance amount. It is alleged that complainant also served a notice upon the Ops but no reply was given. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, she had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such she had to file the present complaint.
2. On appearance, OPs filed written statement and took preliminary objections and denied the allegations of the complainant. It is submitted that the competent authority has repudiated the claim under the policies on genuine ground. It is submitted that on having intimation of death of the life assured Satbir Singh holder of insurance policies No. 173985592, 173985157 and 173985158 issued by the branch office Hansi showing the date of death as 06.11.2005 at Army Hospital, all the claim forms were called for settlement of the claim. It is submitted that according to the I.O. of the Corporation, the deceased life assured was in Army and when he came to know that he is having some blockage in his body, he got himself operated in Rurkee. It is submitted that after the operation, he has taken all the three policies concealing the factum of operation as well as blockage and again the problem relapsed on 18.08.2005 and the deceased life assured was admitted to Army Hospital, Delhi and on 06.11.2005 he expired in R.R. Army Hospital. It is submitted that the complaint has been filed after lapse of more than two years from the date of issuing so called notice dated 21.11.2011. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-12 alongwith supporting affidavit.
4. In reply thereto, the counsel for OPs has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R-7.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the husband of the complainant had taken LIC policy from OPs for a sum insured of Rs. 1 lakh. The husband of the complainant died on 06.11.2005 at Delhi. The complainant submitted the claim papers to the OPs for the payment of the claim amount. The complainant approached several times to the OPs but claim has not been paid by the OPs. The complainant also got issued a legal notice to the OPs.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties reiterated the contents of his reply. He submitted that this Hon’ble District Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint because the policy in question was taken by the life assured Satbir Singh from Branch Office Hansi, District Hisar. No cause of action has accrued to the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum because the husband of the complainant died at Delhi. He further submitted that the husband of the complainant died on 06.11.2005 and the present complaint has been filed after 8 years, after the expiry of period of limitation of 2 years. He further submitted that the OP got investigated the claim of the complainant. According to Form No. 3816 issued by Army Hospital, New Delhi the complainant’s husband was in the hospital from May/July 2004. The husband of the complainant was got operated at Rurkee. The complainant’s husband was suffering from Non hodgekin’s Lymphoma and he did not disclose the said fact in his proposal form. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP.
8. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record, carefully. The husband of the complainant for obtaining the policies in question submitted the proposal form dated 14.08.2004 and 31.08.2004. Admittedly, the complainant’s husband died on 06.11.2005 in the Army Hospital, Delhi. The Form No. 3816 issued by the Army Hospital, Delhi is Annexure R-4, wherein it has been mentioned that the life assured was suffering from Non hodgekin’s Lymphoma since May /July 2004.
9. From the contents of the complaint, it is not clear when the complainant lodged the claim with OP under the policy in question. The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OP vide letter dated 04.04.2009 Annexure R-5. If the limitation for filing the present complaint is computed from the date of the repudiation letter then the complainant must have file the present complaint upto 03.04.2011 but the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 09.04.2013 after 4 years from the date of repudiation letter. The complainant has not filed any application for condonation of delay alongwith complaint.
10. The policy in question was taken by the life assured from Branch Office, Hansi, which is clearly evident on the policies Annexure C-2, Annexure C-3 and Annexure C-4 and the life assured died at Delhi. Therefore, no part of cause of action arose to the complainant within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Forum. In this regard, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sonic Surgical Versus National Insurance Company Limited in Civil Appeal No. 1560 of 2004 decided on 20.10.2009 has to be taken into consideration.
11. Considering the each and every aspect of the case, the complaint of the complainant is false on the ground of concealment of material facts by the life assured in the proposal form at the time of taking the policies. The complaint of the complainant also fails on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and limitation. Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed being devoid of merits. No order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 31-05-2017.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Parmod Kumar) (Sudesh)
Member. Member
