IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/1/2021
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
18.01.2021 03.02.2021 07.06.2023
Complainant:(i) Sah Alam @ Shah Alam @ Shaha Alam
S/o- Md. Sofiullah
Vill- JhunkaChotobokultala
P.O.- Jhunka
P.S.- Beldanga
Dist- Murshidabad
Pin-742134
(ii) Md. Rashedin (Minor aged about 9 years)
S/o- Sah Alam @ Shah Alam @ Shaha Alam
Vill- JhunkaChotobokultala
P.O.- Jhunka
P.S.- Beldanga
Dist- Murshidabad
Pin-742134
(iii) ToufikAlam(Minor aged about 7 years)
S/o- Sah Alam @ Shah Alam @ Shaha Alam
Vill- JhunkaChotobokultala
P.O.- Jhunka
P.S.- Beldanga
Dist- Murshidabad
Pin-742134
-Vs-
Opposite Party(i) Branch Manager,
LICI, Berhampore Branch,
Berhampore Branch
P.O. Berhampore
P.S. Berhampore,
District- murshidabad
Pin-742101
(ii) The Divisional Officer,
LICI, Kolkata,
Jeevan Prabha, DD-5
Sector-1, Salt Lake City
Kolkata, 700064
Agent/Advocate for the Complainants : Md. Saiful Islam
Agent/Advocate for the O.P.s : Saugata Biswas
Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Das…………………………..........President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
Sri. Nityananda Roy…………………………………….Member.
FINAL ORDER
SMT. ALOKA BANDYOPADHYAY, MEMBER.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Sah Alam @ Shah Alam @ Shaha Alam&Ors. (here in after referred to as the Complainants) filed the case against The Branch Manager, LICI Berhampore Branch&Ors.(here in after referred to as the O.P.s) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant filed the instant case stating that his wife died due to burn injury at NRS Hospital on 23.02.2014. As per the advice of the officer of LICI Berhampore Branch the Complainant filed the relevant documents on 22.08.2014 for insurance claim before this branch. But the claim amount has not been settled. Later on 24.01.2017, 01.08.2017 and 10.08.2017 the Complainant continuously filed application for insured amount but finally on 30.12.2019 the O.P. refused to pay the insured amount. Finding no other alternative the Complainant filed the instant case before this District Commission for appropriate relief.
Defence Case
After due service of the notices the O.P.shaveappeared by filing Written Version to controvert the plea of the Complainants contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable as the O.P.s has paid the amount according to the policy terms. So, the case is liable to be dismissed.
Points for decision
1. Are the Complainantsconsumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Have the OPs any deficiency in service, as alleged?
3. Are the Complainants entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons:
Point no.1
We peruse the complaint. The averments made in the complaint indicate that the Complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as well as Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Point Nos. 2 & 3
Both these points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.
Undoubtedly, the wife of the Complainant succumbed to burn injuries at NRS Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata on 23.02.2014. The Complainant applied for insurance claim. But as per petition of complaint the O.P. denied for the same.
In the W/V the O.P. stated that according to the terms of the insurance policy they paid the claim of the Complainant. The Ld. Advocate for the O.P.s drew our attention to the documents filed before us where it has been mentioned that LICI Kolkata Suburban Division Office transferred Rs. 1,26,500/- on 21.05.2021 and Rs. 2,00,000/- on 21.05.2021 and Rs. 2,00,000/- on 24.05.2021 through NEFT.
It is evident from the Xerox copy of the policy certificates filed by the Complainants that theyare entitled of Rs. 1,25,000/- for the death ofSumi Khatun as per the policy certificate issued by the O.P. having policy number 429941541 and as per the certificate having policy number 429956714 the sum assured under basic plan is (Rs.) 2,00,000/- and Accident Benefit is (Rs.) 2,00,000/-. So, the Complainants are entitled forRs. 5,25,000/-(2,00,000/- + 2,00,000/- + 1,25,000/-)and as per the Xerox copy of the passbook the O.P.s had paid total Rs.5,26,500/- (2,00,000/- + 2,00,000/- + 1,26,500/-) and the Complainants had admitted that they had received the said amounts.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents filed before us and the argument advanced by the Ld. Advocates of both the parties we are of the view that there is no deficiency on the part of the O.P. as they had paid the due amount to the Complainant as per the terms and conditions of their insurance policy. So, the instant case is liable to be dismissed.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 18.01.2021 and admitted on 03.02.2021. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act, 1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case fails.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No. CC/1/2021 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P.s but under the circumstances without any order as to costs.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand/by post under proper acknowledgmentas per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
Member
Member Member President.
