West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/132/2016

Sri Tarapada Dolai. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

18 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

     Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

     Pulak Kumar Singha, Member

and

   Sagarika Sarkar, Member. 

 

Complaint Case No.132/2016

 

1. Sri Tarapada Doloi, S/o-late Dhananjay Doloi
2. Smt. Rani Doloi, W/o-Tarapada Doloi, Village-Banktal,

P.O.-Khalsemli & P.S.-Kharagpur,

District-Paschim Medinipur..………..……Complainant.

Vs.

1. Birla Sun Life  Insurance Co. Ltd., Midnapore, Keranitola, Midnapore,                             Dist-Paschim Medinipur
2. The Branch Manager, Birla Sun Life  Insurance Co. Ltd., Ground Floor,                                Sarkar Appartment, Inda, Kharagpur, Dist-Paschim Medinipur.....…….….Opp. Parties.

                                                     

                For the Complainant   :  Mr. Pulakananda Mondal, Advocate.

                For the O.P.                  : Mr. Somnath Guin, Advocate.

 

Decided on:18/08/2017

                               

ORDER

            Pulak Kumar Singha, Member : 

 

                    Facts of the case, in brief,  that complainant’s son Asoke Doloi purchased one endowment policy from O.Ps vide policy no.004298150 dated 21/03/2012, sum assured Rs.3,14,000/-.  On 08/11/2013, insured Asoke Doloi died due to suicide (hanging).  Claim lodged to the O.Ps. with required documents  but O.Ps did not pay heed to the claim.

                                                                                                                                                             Contd……………P/2

 

 

                                                                                                  ( 2 )

Complainants also sent legal notice to the O.Ps for sending the sum assured of the subject policy but O.Ps ignored the said demand.  Finding no way the complainants filed this case for getting relief.

                  The opposite parties have contested this case by filling a written objection. 

                   Denying the allegations of complainant stating inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable, as per terms and conditions of the policy the beneficiary was provided refund of all premiums paid towards this policy therefore the allegation of deficiency of service does not arise.  O.Ps pray for dismissal of the complaint.

 

                                                                 Points for decision

1. Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer ?
2. Are their any deficiencies in service on the part of the opposite parties ?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for ?    

                                                         Decision with reasons

      For the sake of convenience and brevity, all the above points are taken up together for consideration.

     Complainants to prove their case adduced evidence by filing examination-in-chief with affidavit and complainant no.1 tendered as P.W-1 and he filed some documents which have marked (exhibit 1 to 12) respectively and P.W-1 also cross-examined by O.Ps.  O.Ps also adduced evidence on their behalf and tendered the witness and filed some documents which have marked (exhibit A to I) respectively.

    From the evidence, it reveals that O.Ps have sent Rs.31,500/- by NEFT in the account of nominee i.e. wife of complainant, but complainant denied the said statement.

    It is admitted that insured Asoke Doloi died on 08/11/2013 on account of suicide by hanging and police case was started as U.D. Case no 88/13 dated 08/11/2013 under District Paschim Medinipur and in the P.M. report doctor opined the cause of death is from hanging, it is ant mortem in nature.  From the documents, it appears that insured Asoke Doloi died on 08/11/2013 but it was intimated to the O.Ps on 17/07/2015.  It appears from the documents that insured Asoke Doloi purchased one life policy from O.Ps on 28/07/2010 by way of semiannual mode of premium payment and paid only seven installments of Rs.4,500/- each.  The policy in question was get lapsed on 28/02/2013 and said policy got revived on 20/03/2013 and said revival of the policy was intimated to the life assured Asoka Doloi since deceased, vide reinstatement letter dated 21/03/2013.  Suicide clause was made applicable under such policy and such suicide clause in the policy in question it is mentioned

                                                                                                                                                         Contd……………P/3

 

                                                                                             ( 3 )

that “If the life insured under the policy dies by suicide, whether medically sane or insane, within one year after the policy issue date or revival date, whichever is later, we will not pay the amount described In the death benefit provision.  In such circumstances, we will return the higher of the policy fund value or all the premiums paid towards the policy.  In this case, Life assured Asoke Doloi died within one year of policy revival date.  As per policy value provisions O.Ps returned all the premiums paid towards the policy in favour of the nominee Mrs. Rani Doloi i.e. in favour of complainant no.2 of Rs. 31,500/- through NEFT in her Bank A/C on 30/10/2015.  Complainants claimed entire death benefit of life assured but on perusal of policy documents that in case of suicide above such provision nominee is not entitled to death benefit amount.

      In view of the discussions here in above, we think this complaint petition is maintainable at the same time, O.Ps are not deficient in service as they have sent the amount of Rs.31,500/- towards nominee’s Bank A/C through  NEFT.  We find from the document that Rani Doloi nominee of the subject policy put her L.T.I.  On the advance discharge receipt of O.Ps on 17/07/2015 marked as (exhibit-g) where it mentioned her Bank name, A/C number for payment through N.E.F.T. nominee i.e. complainant no.2 did not produce her up to date Bank Pass Book before this Forum which would clear that who told lie.  We think complainant no.2.  Suppressed in respect of receiving the amount from O.Ps as a nominee, O.Ps have paid the amount of Rs.31,500/- on 30/10/2015 to the nominee and intimated the same vide their letter dated 22/06/2016.  In view of the above discussions, we find that O.Ps are neither negligent nor deficient in service.  So, the complainants are not entitled to get an order in their favour.

                                                           Hence, it is,

                                                             Ordered,

                                          that the complaint case no.132/2016  is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

                               Let a plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

 

             Dictated and Corrected by me

                       Sd/- P.K. Singha                             Sd/- S. Sarkar                       Sd/-B. Pramanik.

                            Member                                           Member                                 President

                                                                                                                               District Forum

                                                                                                                           Paschim Medinipur