BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the6th June 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C.No.20/2016
(Admitted on 13.1.2016)
Pauline D Souza,
D/o Cyprian D Souza and
Mother of Steevan D Souza (Deceased),
Represented by Maurice D Souza, (Br) By G.P.A,
ShethalGudde, House,
Rayee village and post, BantwalTaluk
D.K. District.
….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant bySri BN)
VERSUS
- The Sr. Branch Manager,
L.I.C of India, branch office B.C. Road,
Bantwal, D.K.District.
- The Sr. Divisional Manager,
L.I.C of India, Divisional office,
Ajjarkad, Udupi 576101.
…...OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sri AKU)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:
The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant against opposite parties alleging deficiency in service claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainantclaims sheas mother proposed the life of son Steevan (Stephen) D Souza, the he was a minor boy and with the issued policy on 8.7.2005and premiums were paid by the complainant mother. Since his birth of Steevan(Stephen) D Souza complainant is deceased deserted the family for the reasons best known to him and mother and children are living separately in her parents place spar a last 22 years. They have not resorted to legal action even for maintenance for judicial separation because of religious and sentimental reasons. As such complainant cannot approached the husband for consenting or to obtain and give insurance money. On 19.9.2015 the complainant’s son Steevan(Stephen) had a fall on the admitted to Fr. Mullar Medical College Hospital at Kankanadyand on the same was dischargedon 20.9.2015 he committed suicide. She intimated the death and it is learnt that Opposite Party sent the claim form to complainant’s husband who sent the claim form through a relative to the complainant orallysaying that he does not intendto claim the insurance policy not would give writtenconsent/ no objection, as it was a long drawn separation and hence he has nothing to do in the matter. Opposite Party issued a letter dated nil on 2.11.2015 calling for claim form to be submitted by class I legal heir, even after receiving the claim form submitted by complainant had also executed a G.P.A authorizing his brother to attend the requirements and answer all queries. Contending that the refusal of Opposite Party to make payment amounts to deficiency in service seeks the reliefs claim in complaint.
2. The Opposite party in the versionadmits insurancepolicy issued to the deceased Steevan D Souza is son of complainant and that it was proposed by complainant and she was paying the premium amounts and about is death are admitted and issued was policy etc. admitted the separation complainant and husband of complainant is not to the knowledge Opposite Party. At the time of availing the policy the complainant had given a letter to Opposite Parties wherein she had not disclosed that she had a strained relationship with her husband on the contrary she had mentioned in writing that her husband was working in Bombay and she was proposing her sons life. Since the life assured was an unmarried Christian, the proceeds of the policy are required to be disbursed in favour of class I legal heir i.e. father of the deceased. In view of this legal requirement the opposite parties requested the complainant to submit all the claim papers through the father of the deceased life assured or to produce legal evidence of succession by the complainant to the assets of the deceased, from a Court of Law. The policy in question was obtaining name of the minorityof the life assured and there is no provision for nomination under law. Even after attaining majority if life assured person did not making nomination Opposite Party is ready to admittedly consider the claim in respect of the policy on receipt of claim title to the policy proceeds legal entitled person in the policy, hence seeks dismissal of the complainant.
3. In support of the above complaint, the complainantMaurice D’Souza by G.P.A holder, filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered to the interrogatories served on him. On behalf of the opposite party M. JacinthaPais, (RW1) Manager (L and HPF),also filed affidavit evidence and answered to the interrogatories served on her and produced documents got marked at Ex.R1 to R9 as detailed in the annexure here below.
4. In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
The learned counsels for both sides filed notes of arguments. We have considered entire case filed on record including evidence tendered by parties. Our findings on the points are as under follows:
Point No. (i) : Affirmative
Point No. (ii) : Affirmative
Point No.(iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
5. POINTS No. (i):The complainant proposed for the policy of her then minor son it Opposite Party and accordingly Opposite Party issued LIC policy and complainant was making payment of the premium amounts in the name of then minor son the deceased are un disputed. Hence there is relationship ofconsumer and service provider between the parties.
6. The death of complainant’s son Steevan D Souza whose life was insured and paid by complainant proposal is also un disputed Opposite Party declined the claim of complainant for payment of the policy amount to her. Hence there is dispute between the parties as mentioned in under section 2 (1) (e) of C.P. Act. Hence we answer point no. 1 in the affirmative.
7. POINTS No. (ii):The only ground on which Opposite Party decline to make payment to complainant the amount of the policy in respect of the deceased is though proposer was a minor at the time of purchase of the policy he an attaining majority did not nominate any one during the life time. Hence, it is claim of Opposite Party that father of the deceased Marcel D Souza is the clause no.1 heir is entitle to receivethe policy amount. The complainant had made specific allegation that Opposite Party had sent the claim form on the death of Steevan D Souza to Marcel D Souza the of deceased father but he had not made any claim and instead sent the claim form to complainant through a relative by stating that he is not intrusted any of the insurance amount. This aspect disputed by Opposite Party raised a question that the complainant is bad for non joinder as claim that Marcel D Souza the father is necessary party. But complainant has not added him necessary party in the case.
8. The complainant contends that the relationship between her and husband i.e father of the deceased is strained for the last 22 years and they have not for deficiency in service are to claim maintenance. This is though disputed by Opposite Party the complainant mentions due to sentimental reasons no such mores made by complainant.
9. Considering that the claim papers sent by father was not presented by the husband of complainant and instead was sent to complainant in our opinion, is sufficient to conclude that though he as father in class I heir is not interested in making claim. Hence specific case as complainant had is proposal as well as to person who was making payment on the premium amounts to the policy amount to Opposite Party.
10. As regards the apprehension of Opposite Party, in our view, if complainant is directed to execute indemnity bound to the value of the amount would meets ends of justice. Hence point no.2 is are the accordingly in the affirmative.
11.POINTS No. (iii):In result complainant is allowed directing Opposite Party No.2 deposit amount of Rs.1,44,480/ due to the complainant in respect of policy and also another sum of Rs.10,000/ towards mental agony and suffering and another Rs.8,000/ towards legal expenses and in the interest at 9% from date of complainant till date on amount of Rs.1,44,480/
Wherefore the following order
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. Opposite Parties shall pay Rs.1,44,480/ to the complainant with interest at 9% from 12.7.2016 date of complaint till the date of payment.
2. Opposite Parties shall pay Rs.10,000/ as compensation
3. opposite parties is also shall pay Rs.8,000/ cost of the litigation expenses.
4. The complainant before receiving the amount shall execute indemnity bound with solvent surety for a sum Rs.2,00,000/ for like sum.
5. Opposite parties granted 30 days time for making payment.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 7 directly typed by steno on computer system to the dictation of President revised and pronounced in the open court on this the6thJune 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(LAVANYA M. RAI) (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore Mangalore
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Maurice DSouza by G.P.A holder
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Nil
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1 M. JacinthaPais, Manager (L and HPF)
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Ex.R1: proposal form completed by the complainant.
Ex.R2: Addendum to proposal for assurance on the lives of the minor
Ex.R3: Medical examiners confidential report.
Ex.R4: Agent/Development officers report.
Ex.R5: Copies of correspondence issued to the proposer by the LIC office having enclosed policy document including special
provisions office copy.
Ex.R6: Letter of proposer stating her husband working Bombay.
Ex.R7: Proposal review slip.
Ex.R8: Challan for payment of initial deposit.
Ex.R9: Original policy bond bearing No.624185216.
Dated: 06.06.2017 PRESIDENT
