BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
Thursday, the 15th day of March 2018
First Appeal No.20 / 2017
Life Insurance Corporation of India (Vellore Division)
Kamaraj Salai, New Saram, Puducherry – 605 013
rep. by its Branch Manager
… Appellant
vs
1. K. Srividhyaa, wife of late N.M. Kaarthigheyan
No.5, Manakula Vinayagar Nagar
Second Cross, Puducherry – 605 005.
2. Oriental Bank of Commerce
No.20, First Floor, Rangapillai Street
Puducherry – 605 001 rep. by its
Branch Manager
… Respondents
In C.C. 11 / 2011
K. Srividhyaa, wife of late N.M. Kaarthigheyan
No.5, Manakula Vinayagar Nagar
Second Cross, Puducherry – 605 005.
…. Complainant
Vs
1. Oriental Bank of Commerce
No.20, First Floor, Rangapillai Street
Puducherry – 605 001 rep. by its
Branch Manager
2. Life Insurance Corporation of India (Vellore Division)
Kamaraj Salai, New Saram,
Puducherry – 605 013 rep. by its
Branch Manager
…. Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON’BLE JUSTICE THIRU K. VENKATARAMAN
PRESIDENT
Thiru S. TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,
MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
M/s Vas Associates, Advocates
FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Thiru L. Swaminathan, Advocate for R1
Thiru A. Sendhil Narayanan, Advocate for R2
O R D E R
(By Justice Thiru K. Venkataraman, President)
This appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry dated 10.08.2017 made in
C.C. 11 / 2011.
2. The Second opposite party therein is the appellant, the complainant is the first respondent and the first opposite party is the second respondent and the parties are referred in the same position as they had been referred before the District Forum, Puducherry for the sake of convenience.
3. The case of the complainant before the District Forum was that she is the wife of N.M. Kaarthigheyan. He has taken a Bima Kiran Policy from the second opposite party on 28.07.1998 and was paying the annual premium. The complainant is the nominee of the said policy. Her husband opened a Joint Savings Bank Account along with the complainant with the first opposite party bank. In order to avoid delay in payment of premium amounts to the second opposite party, he has given a letter to the Branch Manager of OP1 giving standing instructions to deduct LIC premium amounts for three policies taken by him. On 27.10.2009, he met with an accident and died on the spot. The complainant being nominee has approached this second opposite party with all records and requested to pay the death benefits of her husband under the said policy. Though the second opposite party has paid a sum of Rs.15,202/-, i.e., the basic amount of Rs.14,102/- and a sum of Rs.1,100/- as death claim, it failed to pay a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh of death benefit with Loyalty additions. On enquiry, it has been found that the first opposite party did not make payment to the second opposite party. The second opposite party has not intimated about the non-payment of the amount by the bank. Thus, the first and second opposite parties committed deficiency in service. Therefore, the complaint has been filed by the complainant seeking the following reliefs:
- To direct the first opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with 18% interest from the date of death of the husband of the complainant to till date of realisation;
- to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation towards mental agony, pain and sufferings on account of Negligence / Deficiency in Service and
- to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- being cost of the proceedings.
4. The second opposite party remained ex parte, though the first opposite party contested the matter. The District Forum found deficiency on the part of the first opposite party as well as second opposite party. The District Forum has ordered a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service of the second opposite party. The other reliefs are granted to the complainant against the first opposite party. This appeal has been preferred as stated by the second opposite party against the direction to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards deficiency of service to the complainant.
5. In its order, the District Forum found that the second opposite party failed to intimate to the policy holder about the non-receipt of the premium and hence, there is a deficiency of service. In the grounds of appeal, it is not the case of the appellant that letter of intimation was in fact, served on the policy holder. In the ground of appeal, it is stated that it is not mandatory on the part of the Corporation to send such intimation / reminders. By raising such grounds, we can infer that the second opposite party has not intimated to the policy holder about the non-receipt of the premium. In the appeal, as stated already, we are concerned only with the claim of the OP2 and not the claim made by the OP1 for which the first opposite party has filed a separate appeal. In view of such position, we are of the view that it is obligatory on the part of the OP2 to intimate to the policy holder about the non-receipt of the premium which they failed to do so. It cannot be said that on the part of the OP2 that it is not mandatory to send such intimation or reminder. We are not able to accept the contentions that it is not mandatory to send intimation / reminder to the policy holder for non-receipt of premium. In view of the said position, we are of the view that the plea taken by the second opposite party in this appeal is liable to be rejected. We find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum.
6. In fine, the appeal stands dismissed. However, we make it clear that the appeal filed by the OP1 will be dealt with separately. However, there is no order as to costs.
Dated this the 8th day of March 2018.
(Justice K. VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(S. TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)
MEMBER
