J U D G M E N T:-

  This is an order for petition filed on behalf of Kaso Devi, W/o Bhuneshwar Ram of Argada Colliery, P.S Ramgarh, presently residing at village Manwa, P.S Giddi District Ramgarh, under Consumer Protection Act against Branch Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India Ramgarh Branch and Divisional Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India and Rishan Sharma Under Consumer Protection Act for grant of Insurance claim Rs- 242000/- compensation for mental agony and harassment Rs-200000/- and litigation cost Rs-50000/-. Total amounting Rs- 492965/-

 2.                The complainant contended in her complaint petition that complainant’s husband Bhuneshwar Ram was an employee of Argada colliery who retired in the month of October 2012 and died on 4/10/13 leaving behind widow and two sons and during his life time the complainant’s husband had taken three life insurance policies I -541135425, II - 452745069 and III - 542736598 and the complainant is only nominee of all the policies. It is contended that Bhuneshwar Ram used to pay 1045/- per month against the policy no- 541135424 and the premium was deducted from his monthly salary.  And as per policy certificate of policy no- 541135425 date of last payment was 20/02/10 and there  were 15 gapes from 12/2008 to 2010 and the opposite party no-1 adjusted 17711/- against the 15 gapes from the survival benefits bonus of Rs- 40000/- and after date of the last payment that i.e 20/02/10 against the opposite party no-1 realized the premium of Rs-1045/-from the monthly  salary of Bhuneshwar Ram since 04/10/12 and opposite party no-1 has realized the excess amount of Rs- 32395 from the policy holder. It is further contended that the claimant received only Rs- 66800 from the opposite party no-1 but as a matter of fact that the opposite party no-1 has to pay Rs- 1,20800/-only but without given any details the opposite party deducted Rs- 54300/-. In place of actual claim of the said policy Rs- 1, 20,800/- . Further according to the complaint petition the complainant’s son namely Gautam Ram filed an application under the Right to Information Act to get same information regarding the 03 policies and as per the Right to Information report the opposite party no-2 has given information regarding all 03 policies and from the report it appears that the opposite party no- 1 has realized extra premium of Rs- 1045/- against the said policy from 04/10 to 11/12 the same fact also appeared from the salary slip of Bhuneshwar Ram since 04/10 to 11/02/12 for 31 months. Further it is contended that the husband of the complainant Bhuneshwar Ram had taken Bima Gold Policy having no- 542736598 and sum assured was Rs- 100000/- and her husband used to pay Rs- 681/-  per month against the said policy and the same was also being deducted from the salary every month there was gapes from 12/2008 to 03/2010 and the opposite party no-1 renewed the said policy and realized the premium of Rs-681/- from the salary since April 2010 to November 2012 and the opposite party no- 1 has realized entire premium amount from the account of the deceased and the opposite party no-1 and 2 are liable to pay 100% assured money to the complainant further it is contended that Bhuneshwar Ram deceased husband of the complainant had also taken Life Insurance Corporation of India policy having no- 542745069 for sum assured Rs 50,000/- through the LIC agent Rishan Sharma the opposite party no-3 and the opposite party no- 1  also realized the premium amount of Rs- 512/- per month from the salary of the policy holder and in that policy also there were some gapes which has been already adjusted and as per information given by the RIGHT TO INFORAMTION authority of LIC Divisional office Hazaribagh that premium of Rs- 512/- has already been adjusted from 04/2010 to 11/2012. It is further contended that the opposite party no-3  received the policy bond certificate having no- 542745069 from the opposite party no-1 but did not give the said documents to policy holder Bhuneshwar Ram and for several times the complainant and her son went to the house of opposite party no-3 and requested to give the bond certificate but the authority has no given the documents and they are liable for payment of Life Insurance Corporation of India LTD policy no- 542745069 for Rs- 50,000/- further according to the complaint petition the opposite party no-1 has realized excess money of Rs- 209/- against the policy no- 542736598 and 542745069 from 04/2010 to 11/2012 that i.e Rs- 209 X 30 = 6270 from the monthly salary of deceased policy holder and the said excess money is still deposited in employee code no-710323. It is also contended that the opposite party no- 1 deducted 1402/- instead of 1193/- against the policy no- 542736598 and 542745069 since 04/2010 to 11/2012 and this fact itself appears from the payment slip of the policy holder Bhuneshwar Ram. Further it is contended that the complainant has sent a legal notice to the opposite party no-1 on 04/07/2014 and on 09/09/14 the opposite party no- 1 has given reply to the notice of the complainant and from the reply and the information given under RTI there are vital contradiction between the reply and the information the complai9nant contended that opposite party no- 2 and 3 are liable to pay 100% death benefit claim of the policy no- 542736598 and Rs- 54300/- to be paid to the complainant of policy no- 541135424 which have been wrongly deducted by opposite party no- 2 and 3 further according to the complaint petition the opposite party members have badly harass the complainant mentally and physically and also financially the complainant has prayed for an order against opposite party no-1 and 2 to pay total sum of Rs- 242965/-and has given details chart for the claimed amount and also has prayed a sum of Rs- 200000/- against the opposite party towards compensation/mental agony and physical harassment and Rs- 50,000/- towards litigation cost and also has prayed to pass order as the forum fit and proper and also has prayed to pass order against the opposite party no-3 to handover the original policy bond certificate of policy no- 542745069.

 3.              The opposite party no- 1 and 2 have filed their written statement according to which the case is not maintainable and fit to be dismissed with cost and the present case vexatious frivolous and the cost of Rs – 10,000/- be paid by the complainant to the opposite party no-1 according to the written statement the deceased was employee of Argadda Colliery under C.C.L Ltd and the deceased was employee under the Project Officer and their policies were under the salary saving scheme through the principal employer and therefore General Manager C.C.L Argadda in a necessary party and the complainant has not made the party and hence the present case is not maintainable. The opposite party admitted paragraph 1 complaint petition against has stated that C.C.L has not been made party further contended that the life assured was retired from his past on October 2012 and died on 04/10/2013 and the gap of 01 year deceased is not look in to policy and did not collect the status of his policies from the office respondent no- 1 which shows that the deceased had knowledge that the policy were lapsed due to non-payment of premium with respect to paragraph2 with complaint petition the answering opposite party stated that those are not correct averment and has stated that the policy no- 5431135424 was salary saving scheme policy under plan 106 and the premium amount said policy was 1045/- and issuing office of the said policy was Ramgarh branch and death of commencement of the said policy was 20/03/1998 and date of maturity 03/2013 and last premium paid up February-2010 and after March -2010 no premium was paid till the maturity and as per norms the complainant provided survival benefit of Rs- 30,000/- on 03/2002 which was paid to the deceased vide cheque no- 0783221 dated 20/3/2002 and second survival benefit Rs- 30,000/- was paid to the deceased on 03/2006 vide cheque no- 0245169 dated 20/3/2006 and third survival benefit was paid on 03/2010 of Rs-40,000/- vide cheque no- 0229491 dated 20/5/10 and the said policy was for sum assured of Rs- 100000/- and sum assured of Rs- 100000/- was received by the deceased in his life time with respect to paragraph 3 of the complaint petition as expected the same is correct and with respect to paragraph 4 has stated the same fact as stated in earlier and also stated that in averment of this para not correct. With respect to paragraph 5 of complaint petition the answering opposite party contended that the same is not correct and stated that the policy no- 542736598 there was non-payment of premium from 12/2008 to 10/2012 and the same premium was no paid the life assured in his life time nor his employer paid the same in his service tenure and hence at the time of the death the said policy was hopelessly lapsed and the life assured had not revived the same and hence the plea of the complainant is totally wrong and baseless. With respect to statement of paragraph 6 of the complaint petition the answering opposite party contended that the same is not correct and the policy no- 542745069 and also there was no- payment of premium from 02/2008 to 10/2012 and said premium was not paid by the life assured in his life time his employer paid the same in his service tenure and the life assured had not tried to revive the said policy in his life time and accordingly the said policy was lapsed the date of commencement of the said policy was 28/12/2007 and premium was not paid from 02/2008 hence the policy was not covered the period of 03 years. With respect tom paragraph 7 the complaint petition baseless and wrong and the life assured had not made any allegation against opposite party no-3 and the same plea is after thought to humiliate opposite party no-3. With respect to paragraph 8, 9, 10 the answering opposite party contended that those are not correct and the answering opposite party contended that the complainant is not consumer of Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd and there was not any contract with the complainant and the complainant cannot claim the policy of the deceased without succession certificate and the plea made by the complainant is paragraph 9 is denied as not correct with respect to paragraph 12 and 14 the answering opposite party contended that there is no cause of action. The answering opposite party has referred decision reported in C.P.J of the National Commission reported in 2015 and 2014 and also 2013 but has not filed the copy of any of the judgment. The answering opposite party contended that the complaint petition is not maintainable and fit to be dismissed with cost in the interest of the justices.

 4.                          Originally the Consumer complaint case is filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Hazaribagh thereafter the case record received and transferred after creation of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Ramgarh on 18/12/2015.

 5.                         Before this forum the complainant in support in her case has filed same documents which are:-  Ext- 1, Xerox copy of Bima Gold Policy issued in the name of Bhuneshwar Ram policy no- 542736598 for sum assured Rs- 100000/-   Ext- 1/1, Policy certificate  Jiwan Surbhi in the name of Bhuneshwar Ram being policy no- 541135424 for sum assured of Rs- 100000/- Ext-2, Series are monthly salary statement for the employees of Argadda colliery issued for Bhuneshwar Ram showing LIC deduction of Rs- 1045/- 1402/-,   Ext-3,  status report of policy no- 542736598,  Ext-3/1. A letter given to Bhuneshwar Ram by the LIC of India to revive lapse policy of 541135424, Ext-3/2, is status report of policy no- 541135424, Ext-4, Series are the deduction chart of the employees of Argadda colliery from April-2010 to October-2012, Ext-4,  series was submitted by the Senior Officer Argadda colliery personal and administration, Ext-5, is the report submitted under Right to Information Act with respect to policy no- 541135424,542736598 and policy no- 542745069 of Bhuneshwar Ram, Ext-6 is the death certificate of Bhuneshwar Ram.

 6.                 A part from the there are no any documents filed either on behalf of the complainant or by the opposite party no 1-2 and 3 and Ext-4 series filed by the newly added opposite party -4.

 7.                 The Learned Advocate on behalf of the complainant and the opposite party has submitted orally in support of their respective claim. Learned Advocate on behalf of the complainant submitted that the husband of the complainant namely Bhuneshwar Ram was an employee under the Argadda colliery and LIC premium of Bhuneshwar Ram was deducted by the colliery and use to sent the same to the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Learned Advocate also submitted Ext 2 series and Ext-4 series are the documents which show that LIC premium of employee Bhuneshwar Ram was deducted from his salary and it was the duty of the employee and for that the employee cannot be held liable for any lapse payment and in case there is any lapse of lapse in depositing the premium the employee should not be suffered. Learned Advocate also submitted that the complainant is the only nominee for the policies and entitled to get the amount.

 8.                      On the other hand the Learned Advocate appearing behalf of the   opposite party submitted that the policy holder was habitually defaulter and he did not take care to continue the policy and even after information given to the policy holder he failed to comply the direction of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Learned Advocate also submitted that the prayer made by the complainant are all vague and imaginery. Learned Advocate submitted that if any amo0unt was deducted from the salary of the employee by the employer unless and until the deducted amount paid to the LIC of India the policy holder shall be deemed to be defaulter and a defaulting policy holder cannot claim the sum assured. The Learned Advocate also submitted that the policy certificate of policy no- 542745069 has already been received by the policy holder and accordingly the policy holder be held responsible and policy holder should present the same before the authority. The policy holder never produces the policy certificate for payment for the same and accordingly the opposite parties are not responsible for any payment.

 9.                  Considering the complaint petition of the complainant the written statement of the opposite party the documents filed on behalf of the complainant and by the C.C.L Argadda colliery and from the oral submission made on behalf of the parties the main point for consideration in this case arose are :-

F I N D I N G S

       Point no- (1) and (II) both these points are conelated and hence taken together for consideration.  

  It is the admitted fact of the parties that Bhuneshwar Ram deceased husband of the complainant Kaso Devi had purchased three LIC policies during his life time, 1-541135424, 2 - 542745069, 3 – 542736598. It is also admitted fact of the parties that the complainant’s husband has received the amount of policy no- 541135424 from the Life Insurance Corporation of India

 10.                        Now the only question remains to be decided with respect to payment for policy no- 542745069 and policy no- 542736598 and the excess payment made for the policies. As per Ext- 1 Bima Gold Policy of Bhuneshwar Ram husband of Kaso Devi policy no- 542736598 for sum assured Rs- 100000/- policy no- 452745069 for sum assured of Rs- 50,000/- are the claimed policies of the complainant. There are no disputes from the part of the opposite party that these policies were not stand in the name of Bhuneshwar Ram the deceased husband of the complainant. Ext-4 series show that regularly deduction was made from the salary of the deceased Bhuneshwar Ramwhile he was an employee,(Ext–5) is the admitted documents and information given to Gautam Ram under Right to Information Act-2005. According to which from the salary of Bhuneshwar Ram some excess amount were deducted which have been kept in code no- 710323 those amount are 1254/- and 6270/- according to the informing officer of the LIC the excess mount shall be refunded. Further according to the information vide Ext-5, with respect to policy no- 542736598 and 542745069 premium for the period till 11/2012 had already been adjusted till 11/2012.

 11.                     Considering the information given under Right to Information Act by the Divisional Manager first appellate authority of Life Insurance Corporation of India. The conmplainant widow of late Bhuneshwar Ram is entitled to get the sum assured/death benefit for the policies of 542736598 for payment of Rs- 100000/-  and policy no- 542745069 for amount Rs- 50,000/- and at the same time the complainant is entitled to get in excess amount of Rs- 1254/- and 6270/- kept under code 710323. This point is accordingly decided in favour of the complainant.

  12.                          The complainant who is widow of Bhuneshwar Ram who claimed for sum assured/death benefit for the LIC policies for policy no- 542736598, 542745069 but the opposite party did not take care for the payment for a pretty long period and on 16/5/14 Ext-5 some information where gathered for these policies and when the opposite party did not gave the positive result she filed consumer complaint case on 17/4/15 but in fact Bhuneshwar Ram the policy holder died on 04/10/13 and the complainant is the nominee for all the policies and accordingly she is entitle to get claims but the opposite party did not take proper step for the payment which is definitely a deficiency on the part of the opposite party for not considering the bonafide  claim of the complainant this payment is also deducted in favor of the complainant. This is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no-1 and 2.                                                  

                                           ACCORDINGLY-;

   In the result the Forum held the opposite party no-1 and responsible for not consideration the bonafide claim of the complainant.

                                                        And-;

  The forum direct the opposite party no- 1 and 2 make the sum assured payment of policy no- 542736598 Rs- 100000/- and of policy no- 542745069 Rs- 50,000/- and excess amount of Rs- 7524 kept under code no- 710323 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India within 60 days of this order. Failing which the opposite party shall have to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of this case till the final realization of the amount and in case the opposite party no-4 who was employee of Late Bhuneshwar Ram after deduction of the premium from his salary has not deposited the same in the L.I.C office. The L.I.C office shall be entitled to get the deducted amount with interest from the General Manager C.C.L Argadda Colliery.

   13.                 The forum is also of the opinion to give compensation to the complainant for sum of Rs- 10,000/- and litigation cost Rs-5000/-

   14.                    Failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order executed through the process of the law.

   15.                    Supply free copy this Judgment/order free of cost to the complainant and the opposite party.