IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.CC/181/2016  

 Date of Filing:            28/12/16                                      Date of Final Order: 12/12/18

Complainant: Hossain Rezwanur Rouf, Minor.

                         S/O Dr. Md. Abdur Rouf,

                         represented by his natural guardian mother

                         Hos-Ne-Ara Bewa, W/O Lt. Dr. M.K.Abdur Rouf

                         Vill. Miapur, PO&PS- Raghunathganj,

                         Dist- Murshidabad, Pin-742225

-Vs-

Opposite Party: L.I.C.I. Raghunathganj Branch,

                             Makenjipara Road,

                             PO&PS-Raghunathganj,

                             Dist- Murshidabad, Pin-742225

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant           :       Sri.Surojit Banerjee

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party:      Sri.Sougata Biswas

Present:   Sri Asish  Kumar Senapati…………………........President.                              

                    Smt. Aloka Bandhopadhyay……………………..Member.

                                      FINAL ORDER

ASISH  KR. SENAPATI, PRESIDING MEMBER.

This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

         One Hossain Rezwanur Rouf (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against L.I.C.I Raghunathganj Branch (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

The sum and substance of complaint case is as follows

         One Life Insurance Policy was taken on 18.12.06 in the name of the Complainant by his father Late Md. Abdur Rouf for a sum assured  Rs.3,00,000/- being policy No. 425136860 and yearly premium was Rs.14,766/-. The father of the Complainant paid 7 yearly premiums till his death on 02.06.15. In terms of the said policy, it has been stipulated that after death of guardian/proposer , the  policy will continue and no premium shall be paid  and assured sum of Rs.3,00,000/- shall be payable to the legal representative of the minor. After death of Md. Abdur Rouf, the mother of the Complainant , submitted a claim petition on 08.07.15 in the prescribed form demanding payment of the assured sum but the OP has neither settled the claim nor stipulated the claim. Hence, the Complainant has  filed  the complaint praying for compensation of Rs.3,25,000/- along with interest @ 15% per annum with effect from 02.06.15.

         The OP contested the case by filling written version on 11.07.17 inter alia denying the materials allegations made out in the complaint, contending that the Complainant has no cause of action and she has no locus standee to file the complaint. The Complainant is not entitled to get the benefit of premium waiver as the proposer did not opt for premium weaver benefit .Since the proposer did not opt  for premium waiver benefit premium is to be paid till the term of the policy ,more over the life assured being alive no sum assured is payable under the policy on death of the proposer. The OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

On the basis of the above version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :

Points for consideration

1. Isthe Complainant consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

3. Have the OPs any deficiency in service, as alleged?

4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Point No.1

       The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as the Complainant purchased one Life Insurance Policy on 28.12.06 being police No. 425136860 on payments of yearly premiums. He argues that the father of the Complainant Late. Md. Abdur Rouf was the proposer and he paid premiums for 7 years till his death on 02.06.15.

         In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the Complainant is not a consumer.

    Having gone through the written complaint, written version, evidence and xerox copies of documents submitted by both sides, we find that the Complainant is a consumer, as he hired the services of the OP for consideration.

Point No.2

         The Complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.

  On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

Point nos.3&4

          The Ld. Advocate of the Complainant submits that after death of Md. Abdur Rouf, the proposer of the policy, the Complainant claimed Rs.3,00.000/- i.e. the sum assured value but the OP neither settled the claim nor repudiated the claim. It is urged that as per terms of the policy the sum assured value is payable to Insured on death of the proposer but in the present case the OP did not pay any amount to the Complainant in spite of lodging the claim. He submits that the OP has deficiency in service and the Complainant is entitled to get the sum assured value of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest @ 15% per annum and compensation of Rs.25,000/-.

In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the proposer of the policy namely, Md. Abdur Rouf did not opt for premium weaver benefit as it appears from the answer of para15 (b) of the proposal form duly filled in by the proposer dated 29.12.06 (Annexure-A). He argues that the Complainant claimed the sum assured value after death of the proposer but the OP was unable to pay the sum assured value as the proposer did not opt for premium weaver scheme. It is contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.

He submits that he has filed the status report of the policy (Annexure- B&C). It is contended that (1)the Complainant may get Rs.1,58,046/- as on this day if he opted for SSV by observing some formalities as per requirements and (2)after expiry of the policy i.e. after 2026 the Complainant is entitled to get Rs.2,98,200/-(3) if the Complainant intends to continue the policy , he may pay the due premium with interest and he will get the sum assured after maturity of the policy. He contends that the OP is ready and willing to accept any of the 3 options as mentioned above on receiving acceptance from the Complainant.

  The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the OP is to offer options to the Complainant and the Complainant will choose anyone of it for getting the benefit best suited to him.

  We have gone through the materials on record including the status report of the Policy (Annexure-B&C), it is clear from the submission of the Ld. Advocate for the OP that there are 3 options open for the Complainant to opt.

I)  He may opt for SSV and may get Rs.1,58,046/-  as on this day.

II) He may opt for getting Rs. 2,98,200/- after expiry of the policy i.e. 2026.

III) He may opt for continuation of the policy on making payment of the premiums already due along with interest.

          We find that the OP was silent for a considerable period and it has not been intimated to the Complainant that he has 3 options. We think that the OP has deficiency in service as the OP has not intimated the Complainant that his father (proposer) has not opted for premium waiver benefit but the Complainant has 3 options.

          We think that the OP may be directed to pay Rs.1000/- for deficiency in service and the OP may be directed to offer the Complainant intimating him specifically that he has 3 options and out of 3 options , he may opt any of the 3 within the period of one month and the Complainant may be directed to accept any of the 3 options to be offered by the OP and the OP may be directed to accept the acceptance of the Complainant, if  accepted by the Complainant ,within 15 days from the date of submission of his offer and do act accordingly.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 29.12.16 and admitted on 06.01.17 . This Forum 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 order..

In the result, the Consumer case succeeds.

Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is

                                        Ordered

that the Complaint Case No. CC/181/2016 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest  against the OP without any cost.

The OP may be directed to pay Rs.1000/- for deficiency in service and the OP  be directed to offer the Complainant intimating him specifically  that he has 3 options and out of 3 options he may opt any of the 3 within the period of one month.

The Complainant be also directed to opt any of the 3 options to be offered by the OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of the offer from the O.P. The OP be directed to dispose of the claim of the Complainant within 30 days from the date of submission of the claim of the Complainant.

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 acknowledgment  as 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.

             President.                        

Member                                                                                      President.