Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1692/2015

Amandeep Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianze Life Ins.Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Manjit Singh

20 Jul 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                    Complaint no. 1692                                                                                              

                                                                    Instituted on:  18.12.2015

                                                                    Decided on:    20.07.2016

 

1. Amandeep kaur aged about 27 years wife of Late Shri jagsir Singh alias Jasbir Singh son of Harbhajan singh;
2. Ravneet Kaur minor daughter of late Sh. Jagsir Singh alias Jasbir Singh son of Harbhajan Singh under the Guardianship of her mother Amandeep Kaur;
3. Manjit Kaur wife of Harbhajan Singh son of Gurnam Singh;
4. Harbhajan Singh son of Gurnam Singh residents of village Dhandoli Kalan, Sub Tehsil Dirba, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.     

                                                …. Complainants.    

                                         

Versus

1.       Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited,

near Sunami Gate, Old FCI Office Sangrur    through its Branch Manager.

2.Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.215-217, 4th Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Managing Director/ Divisional Manager.

3. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited G.E. Plaza, Airport Road,  Yerawada, Pune ( Maharashtra) through its Chairman.

      ….Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:        Shri Manjit Singh, Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES :        Shri G.S.Nandpuri, Advocate.                     

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Complainants have preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that deceased Jagsir Singh alias Jasbir Singh got himself insured from the OP no.1 for Rs.2,00,000/-  on 11.06.2007 which was valid upto 11.06.2027. Unfortunately, Jagsir Singh alias Jasbir Singh  died on 2.4.2015  due to electric shock for which FIR number 76 dated 3.4.2015  was lodged at Police Station, Sangrur and post mortem was also conducted. Jagsir Singh alias Jasbir Singh died before the date of maturity, so the amount of policy became payable immediately on his death. The nominee Harbhajan Singh father of deceased or all the complainants are entitled to the amount of policy alongwith interest. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/-  as policy amount alongwith agreed interest @18% per annum to the complainants till realization,   

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.75000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, preliminary objections on the grounds of cause of action, jurisdiction, maintainability and estappal have been taken up. On merits, it is stated that the intimation of the death of the life assured was given to the OPs only on 15.01.2016 when the claim documents were submitted by the nominee.  It is further stated that   claim was lodged on 15.01.2016 and the OPs had expeditiously processed the death of the life assured along with mandatory claim documents and forms. It is further stated that the permissible death claim amounting to Rs.2,00,000/-  under the policy number 0053832785  on the file of Mr. Jasvir Singh deceased  was paid to the valid subsisting  nominee  Mr. Harbhajan Singh and the said amount was credited to the State Bank of Patiala account number 65152355707  of the nominee  on 25.01.2016. Thus, there is no delay, negligence  or deficiency in service on the part of the Ops as the claim under policy was paid within just 10 days of the receipt of the same.

3.             In his evidence, the complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13 and closed evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-23 and closed evidence.

4.             During the arguments, it has been revealed that the OPs had already made the payment of claim amount on 25.01.2016 during the pendency of the present complaint. Learned counsel for the complainants has argued that the complainants are entitled for the interest from the date of death of insured i.e. from 02.04.2015 but from the perusal of the documents on the file we find that the complainants have submitted the claim form along with documents on 15.01.2016 and the OPs had made the payment on 25.01.2016 without any delay. So, in our view the complainants cannot take the benefit of their own wrong because they have not submitted the claim form along with documents immediately after the death of insured rather they submitted the same on 15.01.2016.  Even the complainants have filed the complaint on 18.12.2015 prior to submission of the claim form alongwith documents by mentioning that complainants have made requests to the OPs to pay claim amount but there is no document on the file which could show that the complainants have made requests to the OPs for payment of claim amount. 

5.             In view of the above discussion, we find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and as such complaint of the complainants is dismissed however with no order as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                       

       Announced

       July 20, 2016

 

 

( Sarita Garg)           ( K.C.Sharma)           (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                      

Member                 Member                          President

 

 

BBS/-