Haryana

Karnal

CC/113/2022

Rahul Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Kavinder Singh

21 Mar 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 113 of 2022

                                                          Date of instt.07.03.2022

                                                          Date of Decision 21.03.2022

 

Rahul Sharma son of late Shri Devi Dayal, resident of village Picholia, Tehsil and District Karnal through his wife and authorized person Smt. Geeta. Mobile 7494969974.

 

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance company Limited, Second Floor, SCO 138, Sector-13, main market, near Bangla Sweets Karnal through its authorized signatory.

                                                                        …..Opposite Party.

 

      Complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

 

 Present: Sh. Kavinder Singh, counsel for complainant.

                                        

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                Complaint presented today. It be checked and registered.

 

                        This complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is nominee in the life insurance policy purchased by his father Shri Devi Dayal (since deceased). The complainant at present is living abroad in Dubai and the complainant has appointed his wife Smt. Geeta as his authorized person/attorney to file and prosecute the present complaint and to lead evidence etc. on behalf of complainant. Smt. Geeta i.e. wife of complainant is well acquainted with the facts of the case and she has got no adverse interest against the complainant.

2.             It is averred that father of complainant namely Shri Devi Dayal purchased a life insurance plan i.e. ABSLI Guaranteed Milestone plan, vide policy bearing no.008072624 from the OP and the policy terms was 20 years and installment premium was Rs.15,000/- (excluding GST etc.) and premium payment term was 10 years. Shri Devi Dayal was hale and hearty and after satisfying itself, the OP had issued the said policy to the father of complainant and date of issuance of policy was 09.01.2020 and the installment premium of Rs.15,675/- was paid and for the next year i.e.2021 the premium of the installment was paid to the OP and policy was renewed. OP had assured that the premium is to be paid for 10 years and after maturity of the policy an amount about Rs.three lakhs will be paid and if during the tenure of policy any mis-happening will be  occurred with the life of Shri Devi Dayal, then nominee will get the same maturity benefit and sum assured was Rs.2,25,000/-. In the said policy, the complainant was appointed as nominee being son of the policy holder. On 22.11.2021, the father of complainant was complaining about abdominal pain, cough and breath problem etc. and due to which he was got admitted in KCGMCH, Karnal in emergency and he was provided medical aid but he could not survive and was expired on 22.11.2021. The OP was informed about the death of Shri Devi Dayal immediately and thereafter the required documents as directed by OP were submitted to it for the death claim and OP considering all aspects, made an amount of Rs.1,59,075.5p to the complainant on 13.02.2022 through NEFT. The OP made less payment of death claim to the complainant. The sum assured under the policy is Rs.2,25,000/- and maturity benefit is Rs.2,94,240/- and as such, OP is legally bound to make the payment of sum assured Rs.2,25,000/- or maturity amount of Rs.2,94,240/- as assured by the OP. The complainant had contacted the OP several times telephonically and through his wife and requested for releasing the remaining payment of death claim but OP did not pay any heed to the genuine request of complainant and lastly refused to accede the genuine request of the complainant. In this way there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

3.             Arguments on the point of admissibility heard. Record perused.

4.             A careful perusal of the file, it reveals that the complainant is nominee in the policy in question but the present complaint has filed through his wife. The wife of complainant is not comes under the definition of ‘consumer’ as per Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The present complaint has not filed by any competent person. Hence, the present complaint is not maintainable and same deserves to be dismissal at the stage of admission

5.             In view of above discussion, the present complaint is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed. However, complainant is at liberty to file a fresh complaint, if so desired. Party concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.

Announced
Dated: 21.03.2022

    President,     

District Consumer Disputes                               

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

                      (Vineet Kaushik)                      

                          Member