Orissa

Anugul

CC/74/2013

Gitanjali Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

BM,LIC - Opp.Party(s)

S.Behera

25 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
ANGUL
 
Complaint Case No. CC/74/2013
 
1. Gitanjali Sahoo
New Balanda,Handidhua,Talcher
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. BM,LIC
Talcher
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Durga Charan Mishra PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Sunanda Mallick MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Kalyan Kishore Mohanty MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 25 Oct 2016
Final Order / Judgement

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANGUL

 

       PRESENT:- SRI  DURGA CHARAN MISHRA.                          

                                       PRESIDENT

                                                             A N D

 

                                      Mrs. S.MALLICK & Sri K.K.Mohanty,

                                        MEMBER .

 

                              Consumer Complaint No. 74 of 2013

 

                                         Date  of  Filling : - 06.09.2013.

                                                 Date  of  Order  :-  25.10.2016.

 

Gitanjali Sahoo,W/O.Late Nirmal Sahoo,

Vill-New Balanda,P.O. Handidhuan,P.O:-

Colliery,S.D:- Talcher,Dist.Angul.

 

                                          _________________________Complainant.

                   Vrs.

   

  1. Branch Manager,L.I.C of India,

Talcher Branch,At/P.O-Talcher,Dist.Angul.

 

02.Divisional manager,L.I.C of  India,Cuttack

      Division,At/P.O/Dist:- Cuttack.

                                     _________________________    Opp. parties.

 

For the complainant    :-  Sri S.Behera & associates(Advs.)

For the opp.parties     :-  Sri R.P.Pattanaik & associates(Advs.)

 

                                          : J U D G E M E N T   :

Sri D. C. Mishra, President.

          The  complainant has filed  this case  with prayer  to direct the opp.parties to  award the  maturity value  of the  policies  of her deceased husband  along with  compensation for  deficiency of  service and  cost of  litigation.

2.       The  case of  the  complainant in short is  that, Nirmal Sahoo had made insurance  policy No. 584346735 on dt. 14.08.2001 for  Rs. 40,000.00 only which was revived  on dt. 13.01.2004 and  dt. 09.03.2005 and the  policy  continued. Again on dt. 24.04.2007 , the  said  Nirmal   Sahoo made another  policy bearing No. 589415479  for Rs. 30,000.00  only. While  both the policies were  continuing , the  insured Nirmal Sahoo  expired on dt. 04.11.2007.So the  complainant  Gitanjali Sahoo being the  legal  married  wife of  deceased Nirmal Sahoo made   insurance claim  for the  aforesaid  policies  but the insurance authorities repudiated the  claim with  plea of  suppression of  facts. Then the complainant regularly approached the insurance authorities  and made  correspondence but in vain. So she has  filed  this   complaint  seeking  the   reliefs  as  already stated in  para No. 1.

2.       The opp.parties have  contested the  case by filing   written version stating that the  case of the  complainant is  barred  by law of  limitation and  since there  are  early claims  i.e within two years  of making  the  policies, payment  cannot be  made as there is  suppression of material fact, during  making  and  revival of the policies. So  they   have  prayed   to  dismiss the case.

3.       In view  of the   rival  pleadings of the  parties the  following  issues arises  for  consideration :-

Issues :-

  1. Whether  there is  any cause of  action to file this case.
  2. Whether   the  case is barred by law  of  limitation  or  any  other law?
  3. Whether   the insurer had   suppressed  the material  facts  regarding his  disease and   treatment  and   gave false   declaration  when  policies  were  made ?
  4. To  what reliefs the  complaiant   is  entitled to ?

 

 

: F I N D I N G S :

 

Issue No.(i) & (ii):-                  The  complainant has mentioned in her  complaint that  she has made  correspondences  on various  dates to L.I.C  authorities  i.e on  01.08.2008, 01.09.2009, 01.10.2010, 01.11.2012,01.12.2012 and lastly  on 06.08.2013 for  early   settlement of her claims. Thus after  death of  insurer, the  complaint was regularly approaching the  authorities  regarding  her  claim and she has not neglected  in any more.  In the  written version the  opp.parties  have  not   specifically denied  this fact. Thus the  case of the  complainant is not  barred by  law of  limitation.

 

          Since the  opp.parties  did not settle the  claim of  complainant,  she   has cause of action  to file the  case.

 

Issue No.(iii):-      According  to the provision of C.P.Act, the  plea of  suppression of material facts  regarding  disease and  treatment  can be  taken  within  two years  of the  commencement  or  revival of the  policies. Policy No. 584346735 was commenced on dt. 14.08.2001 and fully revived  on dt. 13.01.2004  and  dt. 09.03.2005.Thus, the   plea of  suppression of  fact  regarding   this  policy  can be taken  only  within two  years  of the last revival. After  two  years  the opp.parties  cannot  take  such  a  plea. So  this plea of  the opp.parties  regarding  policy No. 584346735 is  devoid of   any merit and the opp.parties shall  pay matured  amount  to the  complainant immediately.

 

          As regards policy No. 589415479, the opp.parties  have  communicated  final repudiation letter   on dt. 05.04.2009 (Annexure-I)  stating  about  suppression of  fact  by the  insured  regarding  his  treatment  and  disease. This intimation has been given within two years of  commencement  of policy. In support of the  claim  of the opp.parties, they have  furnished  a  bunch  of  treatment  receipts and   prescription  of   insured  out of  which Annexure-I,II,III & IV  reveals  that the  insured  was  suffering  from Tubercular Lymphadenitis  from 2003  to 2007  but allegedly the  insured  has suppressed  it. The opp.parties have  taken the  plea in  right  time i.e within  the  time allowed by C.P.Act, 1986. Though  the  complainant’s  counsel has   merely  disputed the  facts  during  argument  but  nothing  has  been  pleaded/proved  in  support   of  her  dispute. So the complainant is not  entitled to  get the  amount in respect of  policy No. 589415479.

 

Issue No.(iv):-      In view  of the   discussions made  above in issue No. (i),(ii) & (iii) , the  complaint is  entitled to get   maturity   value  Rs. 40,000.00  of policy No.  584346735. Since  the  opp.parties  have unnecessarily  withheld the  claim of the  complainant, they are  liable to pay 7% simple interest  per annum on the  matured  amount  from the date of death of  insured i.e  from  dt. 04.11.2007 upto  the date of   actual payment along with cost of  litigation.

 

4.       Hence ordered :-                           : O R D E R :

 

          The  case  is  partly  allowed  on contest against  the opp.parties. The  opp.parties shall pay  the matured   amount of Rs. 40,000.00 (Forty Thousand) only of  policy No.  584346735 to the   complainant  along with  7%  simple interest  per annum  on the  said   amount  from dt. 04.11.2007  till the   actual  payment  is made. Also  the opp.parties  shall pay  Rs. 5,000.00 (Rupes Five Thousand) only  towards cost  of litigation. This order shall be complied by the opp.parties within  45(forty-five)  days  of  receipt of this order. The complainant will not  get benefit  from policy No. 589415479  .

 

                                                                    Order delivered in the open forum

today the  25th  Octoberr,2016                                                      with hand   and seal of this Forum.

Typed to my dictation

and corrected by me                                          Sd/-

                                                                          (Sri D. C. Mishra)

 Sd/-                                                                             President.       

  (Sri D. C. Mishra)                                                             

         President .

                                                                                 Sd/-

                                                                                (Mrs. S. Mallick)

        Sd/-                                                                                Member.

 (Sri K.K.Mohanty), Member.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Durga Charan Mishra]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Sunanda Mallick]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. Kalyan Kishore Mohanty]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.