IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/121/2016.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
12.08.16 24.08.16 06.08.19
Complainant: Tanuja Bewa, W/o Late Safikul Islam
D/o Late Hazrat Ali, Vill-Biswanathpur,
PO&PS-Lalgola, Dist-Murshidabad,
Pin-742148
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Branch Manager, Raghunathganj Branch,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
PO&PS-Raghunathganj, Dist-Murshidabd,
Pin-742225
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Pranab Kumar Das.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party : Sri. Subhash Saha.
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Aloka Bandyopadhyay, Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Tanuja Bewa (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The husband of the Complainant as a proposer insured his minor son`s life with Life Insurance Corporation of the India vide policy No. 424036675 dated 24.01.04 and the premium was paid regularly against the said policy. That on 20.05.11 at about 4.00 P.M.-4.30 P.M., the husband of the Complainant faced with an accident and due to the said accident the husband of the Complainant died on the spot and the minor son of the Complainant also died after his father`s death. The Complainant as a heir in respect of said insurance policy requested the OP to released her claim. In spite of repeated demand the OP refused to pay the insured amount. So the Complainant wrote a letter on 05.01.16 to the OP to disburse her claim but the OP verbally rejected the said claim. Finding no other alternative the Complainant filed the instant case before this Forum for appropriate relief.
The OP after service of the notice filed written version taking stating that the petition is not maintainable as the Complainant was not the nominee and the legal heir of Minhazuddin Islam in respect of policy No. 424036675 and the OP also stated that the Complainant never demanded any claim to this OP and without production of succession certificate granted from the competent Court of Law, this OP cannot disburse any amount due to the death of Safikul Islam and Minhazuddin Islam. There is no deficiency or negligence on the part of the OP in paying the death claim amount and as such the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
Now the question arises whether the Complainant is a consumer and the Complainant is entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with reason
Admittedly, there was insurance policy with the OP vide policy No. 424036675 (Annexure-4) in the name of Minhazuddin Islam and Safikul Islam was the proposer. The Complainant is the mother of the said Minhazuddin Islam and wife of Safikul Islam. Both Minhazuddin Islam and Safikul Islam unfortunately died in road accident on 20.05.11. After the death of the said two person, the Complainant claimed the aforesaid Insured amount before the OP as legal heir in respect of said insurance policy and by this way as a legal heir the Complainant steps as a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Complainant stated that she wrote a letter to the OP regarding the said claim (vide Annexure-D) but she received no positive response. The Complainant filed before us the birth certificate of the said Minhazuddin Islam. It is evident from the certificate of birth that Safikul Islam and Tanuja Bibi are the parents of the said son. The OP in the written version stated that the Complainant never demanded any claim and insured expired before maturity. So, succession certificate is required to disburse the claim of the Complainant. The Complainant also file a documents containing the heading Weaver of Legal Evidence of Title (LET) reference No. CO/LKTG/CS/381/22 dated 13.08.98 from where we find that “where life assured expires before date of maturity of the policy of after date of maturity but before receiving the maturity amount and there is no nominee/Assignee/trustee under the policy, the title of the policy money become open. Under such cases, strictly speaking, the amount is payable to the person who submits evidence of legal title (proof of ownership) such as succession certificate, probate of will in his/her favour. However, to mitigate the hardship to the claimant. LIC considers waiving legal evidence of title. If, as evidence of title to the life assured’s estate, probate of will or letter of administration are obtained from court of law, then it is not necessary to insist upon production of certified copy of the schedule of assets to see whether the policy monies have been included thereon. But an initiative is not to be taken in advising the claimants to send their requests to the Corporation for allowing waiver of strict proof of title. An impression is not to be given that the claimant need not make efforts to obtain and submit the required proof of title to the policy moneys and Corporation of ready to consider waiver of legal evidence of title. Specific request to do must come in writing from the claimant after his having exhausted all possible steps to obtain the same.”
Considering facts and circumstances of the case and the documents filed before us and the argument advanced by both the sides, we are of the view that in respect of the aforesaid claim as per the birth registration certificate the Complainant is the mother of the insurer and there is no doubt that the mother is one of the legal heirs because biological mother can be only one person and more than one biological mother is not possible and the O.P has also not stated thatany other person has claimed the insured amount as legal heir in respect of this policy. Moreover, the Ld.Advocate for the Complainanthas submitted that the Complainant is the only heir oflate Minhazuddin Islam but no document has been filed .
So, we are of the view that the Complainant should get the insured amount on furnishing indemnity bond along withthe certificate issued by Gram Pradhan of the locality of the complainant in respect of heirs oflate Minhazuddin Islam .
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 12.08.16 and admitted on 24.08.16. 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/121/2016 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest without cost against the OP.
The OP is directed to release the insured amount to the complainant within 45 days from the date of furnishing indemnity bond along withthe certificate issued by Gram Pradhan of the locality of the complainant in respect of heir oflate Minhazuddin Islam and in case of failure it shall carry interest @8% p.a from the date of this order till its realization payable to the complainant.
The Complainant is directed to furnish indemnity bond along withthe certificate issued by Gram Pradhan of her localityinrespect of heirs oflate Minhazuddin Islam , as early as possible before the O.P.
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.
Member
Member President.
