Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Aggrieved over dismissal of their complaint case by the Ld. District Forum, this Appeal is moved by Sri Deepak Kumar Khemka and his mother, Smt. Sudha Khemka, the Appellants/Complainants.

The Appellants/Complainants moved the complaint case alleging non-settlement of their legitimate claim in respect of a policy being procured by Krishna Kumar Khemka, since deceased. Such allegation was denied by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 contending inter alia that Lt. Krishna Kumara Khemka took one policy from them in the year 2009.  At the time of issuance of the policy the fund was invested in individual Life-Income Advantage.  However, on 20-08-2010, the life assured made a call to the contact centre of these Respondents expressing his desire to migrate to Individual Life Maximiser.  Based on such request for fund switch, they processed his request and the same was communicated to the client vide letter dated 26-08-2010.  These Respondents did not receive any complaint from the life assured with regard to the switch and allocation of fund which shows that he had no objection in that regard.  These Respondents received first complaint from the Appellant No. 1 on 10-09-2012 that, his father, i.e., the life assured expired but he did not give any instruction to switch from Income Advantage to Maximizer.  Subsequently, while processing the said claim, it was detected that the deceased policyholder did not make any nominee.  Therefore, the Appellant was asked to submit indemnity bond and joint discharge receipt.  However, the Appellant refused to furnish discharge receipt till the amount and terms of settlement were confirmed by these Respondents.  Thereafter, series of correspondences were exchanged between the parties, but no positive result emerged out of it.  In view of this, the instant claim could not be settled.

On perusal of the impugned order it is observed that the instant case was dismissed on the ground that disputes related to market linked life insurance policies do not come under the purview of consumer dispute.  On due consideration of the entire spectrum of the case, however, I find no rationale in such thinking.  Fact of the matter remains that one takes a life insurance policy for securing his life as well as that of one’s other family members; it is certainly not done with any profit oriented mindset. Thus, it was futile to explore any commercial motive behind taking a life insurance policy, irrespective of whether it was a unit linked policy or otherwise.  Accordingly, I cannot endorse the very ground of dismissal of the complaint case and set aside the same as such.

However, it appears that Krishna Kumar Khemka at the time of his death left behind his wife, Smt. Sudha Khemka, his son, Sri Deepak Kumar Khemka, predeceased son, Sri Bharat Khemka’s wife Smt. Meena Khemka, predeceased son Sri Bharat Khemka’s son, Sri Nikhil Khemka, and predeceased son, Sri Bharat Khemka’s daughter Smt. Shruti Khemka as his only legal heirs and successors.  It is contended by the Appellant that said Smt. Meena Khemka, Sri Nikhil Khemka and Smt. Shruti Khemka already renounced their shares in respect of the subject life insurance policy in accordance with Terms of Settlement being part of the order dated 03-08-2010, passed by the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in C.S. No. 228 of 2007 and C.S. No. 36/2008.  It would be obligatory on the part of the Appellants to furnish one certified copy of the same before the Ld. District Forum.

The case is remanded to the Ld. District Forum for fresh adjudication of the case on merit.  Parties to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 24.07.2019 for submission of document as stated hereinabove and further order. The Appeal stands allowed in part.