DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:50 of 2010] Date of Institution : 25.01.2010 Date of Decision :17.08.2011 --------------------------------------- Smt. Kiran Bala widow of Late Sh. Mahesh Raj Gogna, House No.32, Milk Colony, Dhanas, Chandigarh. ---Complainant. V E R S U S 1) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.329, Sector 9, Panchkula, Haryana. 2) Golden Trust Financial Services Limited, 570, Kesho Ram Complex, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. A. K. Kundal, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for OP No.1. Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for OP No.2. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Smt. Kiran Bala has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein for the following reliefs:- i) To pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- being the sum assured under the policy along with interest @18% per annum; ii) To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and inconvenience. iii) To pay litigation expenses. 2. In brief the case of the complainant is that Sh. Mahesh Raj Gogna was her husband. He died on 5.5.2008 due to injuries received by him on 3.5.2008 in motor vehicle accident. Further the case of the complainant is that Sh. Mahesh Raj Gogna was covered under a Personal Accident Insurance Policy bearing Policy No.OC.05.2401.9960.00000041 being the Member of Golden Trust Financial Services Limited (OP No.2). The said policy was effective for the period from 30.5.2005 to 29.5.2010. The risk covered was to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. Sh. Mahesh Raj Gogna had nominated Smt. Kiran Bala as his nominee in the said policy. According to the complainant, on 3.5.2008, Sh.Mahesh Raj Gogna met with an accident. He received multiple and serious injuries in the said accident. He succumbed to the said injuries on 5.5.2008. So, being the nominee, she submitted a claim as per terms and conditions of the policy. In response to the said claim petition, the complainant received letter dated 9.6.2008 asking her to submit certain documents so that the claim could be processed. The case of the complainant is that she submitted all the required documents vide letter dated 23.6.2008. Despite it, her claim was rejected vide letter dated 10.12.2008 on the ground that the signatures on the proposal form of Late Sh. Mahesh Raj Gogna do not tally with his signature on the PAN Card. So, the proposal form was not signed by Sh. Mahesh Raj Gogna. According to the complainant, she wrote several letters to the OP Insurance Company intimating that the proposal form was signed by her late husband and the proposal form bears his signatures. Despite it, no response was received from the OP Insurance Company. Hence, she issued a legal notice dated 20.2.2009 but to no effect. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the written statement filed by OP No.1, it has been admitted that the policy covering personal accident risks was issued in favour of Sh. Mahesh Raj Gogna being member of OP No.2. It has also been admitted that a claim was received against the said policy, which was processed. It has been submitted that certain papers were required for processing the claim. In the said papers, OP received the PAN Card of the deceased. OP No.1 got the signatures of Sh. Mahesh Raj Gogna compared with his signatures on the PAN Card from the handwriting expert who opined that the signatures on the proposal form of the alleged Mahesh Raj Gogna do not tally with his signatures on the PAN Card. Thus, according to OP No.1, the proposal form does not bear the signatures of Sh. Mahesh Raj Gogna. In these circumstances, the claim has been rightly repudiated. 4. In the written statement filed by OP No.2, it has been admitted that Sh. Mahesh Raj Gogna was member of OP No.2 and being its member, he was covered vide Policy No.OC.05.2401.9960.00000041 against the Personal Accident Claim Benefit. It has been specifically mentioned by OP No.2 that Sh. Mahesh Raj Gogna had submitted his proposal form duly signed by him and had also paid the premium. On the basis of the said proposal form, Policy No. OC.05.2401.9960.00000041 was issued in his favour. It has also been admitted by OP No.2 that on 3.5.2008, Sh. Mahesh Raj Gogna met with an accident and died on 5.5.2008. Thereafter, papers concerning the claim filed by Smt. Kiran Bala were submitted through OP No.2 to OP No.1. However, according to OP No.2, as the policy was issued by OP No.1, all claims were to be settled by OP No.1 and OP No.2 has no role to play in the matter of settlement of the claim. So, it is not liable to pay the claim, hence, complaint qua it deserves dismissal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record. 6. Annexure C-8 is the letter of repudiation dated 10.12.2008, which reads as under: - “We acknowledge the receipt of the documents submitted by you. To our utter surprise, it revealed that the signature in the proposal form showing Late Mahesh Raj Gogna as proposer grossly differs from his signature on that of his Pan Card. Hence, it is crystal clear that Late Mahesh Raj Gogna had never signed the proposal form and the same was submitted to us with representations that the same was signed by Late Mahesh Raj Gogna and thus, there is clear cut breach of utmost good faith which is the basis of contract of insurance. The subject policy in the name of Late Mahesh Raj Gogna being obtained by misrepresentations, as per the terms and conditions incorporated therein the document of policy we are hereby invoking our right to cancel the same and the said policy hereby stands CANCELLED AB-INITIO. In circumstances, as there remained, no policy in force, we are unable to process any claim under the same. That this letter is issued without prejudice to other rights & contentions.” 7. From the bare perusal of this letter, it is apparent that the claim has been repudiated solely on the ground that the proposal form does not bear the signatures of Late Sh. Mahesh Raj Gogna as the said signatures do not tally with his signatures on the PAN Card. Though the report of the handwriting expert has been placed on record yet the affidavit of the said handwriting expert has not been placed on record. In the absence of the affidavit of the handwriting expert, it is not proved that he had verified the signatures properly and the signatures of Late Sh.Mahesh Raj Gogna on the PAN Card did not tally with his signatures on the proposal form. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that in the written statement filed by OP No.2, it has been specifically admitted that Sh. Mahesh Raj Gogna had signed the proposal form and the said form was forwarded to OP No.1 and on the basis of the said form, the insurance policy was issued. It is also pertinent to mention here that neither any objection regarding signatures was ever raised by OP No.1 at the time of issuance of the policy nor any such objection was ever raised by it at the time of receiving the premium etc. If the proposal form was not bearing the signatures of Sh. Mahesh Raj Gogna, OP No.1 should not have issued the policy in his favour. Once the policy was issued in favour of Sh. Mahesh Raj Gogna, now OP No.1 cannot be heard saying that proposal form does not bear the signatures of Sh. Mahesh Raj Gogna. No affidavit has been filed on behalf of OP No.1 deposing that Sh. Mahesh Raj Gogna is still alive and the claim petition has been filed wrongly. In these circumstances, to our mind, repudiation of claim amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. 9. Since, OP No.1 is to pay the claim under the policy, so, the complaint against OP No.2 is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the complaint against OP No.2 is dismissed. 10. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed only qua OP No.1 and OP No.1 is directed to:- i) Pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant (nominee of Late Sh. Mahesh Raj Gogna) being the sum assured under the said policy bearing No.OC.05.2401.9960.00000041; ii) Pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment; iii) Pay Rs.7,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation. 11. This order be complied with by OP No.1 within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP No.1 shall be liable to pay Rs.1,50,000/- i.e. [Rs.1,00,000 + Rs.50,000] along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e.25.01.2010 till the date of actual payment besides the payment of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. 12. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 17th August 2011. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
C.C.No.582 of 2010 Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 16.08.2011. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been allowed qua OP-1 only. Complaint qua OP-2 stands dismissed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 17.08.2011 President Member
| | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
