SRI BIJOY KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Allegation of deficiency in service against Op- Life Insurance Corp. for non-payment of insurance benefits on death of Policy holder are the allegations arrayed against the Opp.Parties.
2. Complaint, in brief reveals that, Complainant’s son namely Saroj Kumar Kundu had taken 2(two) nos. of Life Insurance Policy with an assured amount of Rs. 1 Lakh in Policy No. 585374801 and Rs. 5 Lakhs in Policy No. 589409818 on dtd. 21/07/2004 & 28/02/2008. Unfortunately, the Policy holder died on dt. 10/12/2013 at TATA Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, while undergoing treatment of Blood Cancer. The Complaint petition also reveals that, in said 2 nos. of LIC Policies father of the Policy-holder namely Niranjan Kundu was nominee, who also died in the meantime on the shock of death of his only young son. Complainant approached the LIC authority to release the claim amount on her favour, but Op No.2 namely Satyabhama Kundu, wife of deceased Policy holder and her minor son (Op-3) filed a Civil suit bearing No. C.S.16/2014 before Senior Civil Judge, Kendrapara, which later transferred to Civil Court Pattamundai, where OP No.2&3 alongwith the present complainant claimed 1/3 share from each Policy, subsequently the C.S. No. 16/2014 was dismissed for default. It is alleged that, on dismissal of the Civil Suit, Complainant met the authorities of Life Insurance Corp. to get her 1/3 share amounting Rs. 2 Lakh alongwith other financial benefits derived from the said Policies. But the Op-Insurance authorities did not release the claim amount in her favour, for which the complaint before the Forum alleging deficiency in service against Op No.1 B.M., LIC, Pattamundai. The cause of action of the instant complaint arose on different dates i.e, when the deceased Policy holder taken the 2(two) policies and on dt. 10/12/2013, when the Policy holder died and lastly on dt. 13/11/2017 when Op No.1 refused to releasedthe claim amount. Complainant preys this Forum seeking a direction to Op No.1 to release 1/3rd share in her favour derived from the said 2(two) polices alongwith other benefits as per terms and conditions of the Policy and Op No.1 be further directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- toward mental agony and cost of litigation.
3. On service of Notice Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, Pattamundai Branch appeared into the dispute through their Ld. Counsel and filed written statement into the dispute. In the written statement,Op No.1 flatly denies the allegations of any deficiency in service and submitting the facts of the dispute, it is averred that, Saroj Kaumar Kundu, son of Nirajan Kundu had taken two ( 2) nos. of Life Insurance Policy with an assured amount of Rs. 1 Lakh in Policy No. 585374801 and Rs. 5 Lakhs in Policy No. 589409818 with date of commencement of Policy as dtd. 21/07/2004 & 28/02/2008. The Life assured Saroj Kumar Kundu had nominated his father Niranjan as nominee for the above two policies. It is also averred in the written statement that after death of Policy holder Saroj Kumar Kundu his widow namely Satyabhama Kundu and her minor son filed a Civil Suit bearing C.S.No. 16/2014 impleading Niranjan Kundu, Swarnalata Kundu and Branch Manager,LIC of India,Pattamundai as OP No.1.. But the C.S. No. 16/2014 was dismissed for default. It is further averred that after dismissal of the Civil Suit the money was not released in favour of the Complainant as Niranja Kundu was Nominee on the said 2(two) Policies. In the Circumstances, the Op No.1 has acted in accordance with the law and has not committed any deficiency in service and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. OP No.3, Satyabhama Kundu, wife of the deceased policy holder and her minor son Bhabani Shankar Kundu though received the notice of the Forum,but did not prefer to appear into the dispute, hence, set ex-parte vide Order No.14 dtd.23.08.2018. Thereafter at a very belated stage after closure of the hearing/argument of the proceeding OP No.2&3 appeared through their Ld.Counsel and filed a recall petition of order dtd.19.11.18 alongwith a petitionU/o 9 Rule-7 and 151 CPC with written statement. The petitions were rejected on dtd.14.12.18 by this Forum as no power of recall or review are vested to the Foras under C.P.Act,1986. Accordingly, the OP No.2 & 3 are set ex-parte.
5. Heard the Learned Counsel Mr. B.Mishra appearing for complainant and Learned counsel Mr. R.K.Samal appearing for OP No.1.Branch Manager,LIC of India. In support of her claim, complainant filed documents as per the list, which includes the death certificate of policy holder Saroj Kundu and Niranjan Kunda, Xerox copy of legal heir certificate issued by Tahasildar,Pattamundai, the Xerox certified copy of c.S.No.16/2014 and 2 nos. of premium paid money receipts bearing No.2077950 and 4690339 granted by Life Insurance Corpn. of India.
6. On perusal of documents, complaint, written statement and submission of contesting parties the facts of the dispute reveals that complainant’s son namely Saroj Kund has taken two Life Insurance Policies bearing No.585374801 and 589409818 commencing from dtd.21.07.2004 and dtd.28.02.2008 respectively with a total amount of Rs.6.00 lakhs. The Policy holder Saroj Kund died on dtd.10.12.2013 while undergoing treatment at Tata Memorial Hospital. Niranjan Kund father of the deceased Policy holder was ‘Nominee’ in the said two LIC policies and Niranjan Kund ‘Nominee’ of these two policies also died on dtd.27.12.2015. It is clear that the only legal heirs and successor-in-interest of deceased policy holder Saroj Kund are the claimants on death of the valid Nominee Niranjan Kund. The copy of the legal heirs placed before this Forum discloses that Satyabhama Kund and Bhabani Shankar Kund are the wife and minor son of the deceased policy holder complainant-Swarnalata Kundu is the mother of the deceased policy holder. Accordingly, the legal heirs are entitled to get 1/3rd share each on the sum assured of aforesaid two LIC policies of deceased policy holder Saroj Kund. Further, in the affidavit filed by complainant where she fairly admits that she is entitled to get ½ rd share and the wife and son of the deceased policy holders are entitled to receive the sum assured.. So, there is no longer any dispute regarding distribution of shares related to the aforesaid two policies of Saroj Kund.
Now the question is whether OP No.1,LIC has committed any deficiency in service by not releasing the lawful insurance benefits as alleged by the complainant ?OP No.1 in their defence states that on or after dismissal of c.S.No.16/2014, Niranjan Kundu father of the deceased policy holder remains as the valid Nominee in the said two policies. It is not disclosed before the Forum that the death of Nominee Niranjan Kundu was reported to the OP No.1 by the complainant or not ? Accordingly on the pending dispute of Nomination, the OP-Life Insurance Corporation might have not taken any effective steps for release of 1/3rd share to the complainant. Hence, OP No.1 can not completely treated as deficient in service.
On aforesaid discussions/observations/documents presented before the Forum, we are of the opinion that, Swarnalata Kundu, mother of deceased policy holder Saroj Kundu, who is also an widow is entitled to 1/3rd share of sum assured alongwith other financial benefits as per terms accrued on the said two policies. In the present dispute no relief is sought against OP No.2 & 3 and they are impleaded as parties for just decision of the case.
Having observations reflected above, it is directed that OP No.1,Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, Pattamundai Branch shall release 1/3rd share in favour of the complainant on sum assured alongwith other financial benefits as per the conditions of the policy bearing No.585374801 and 589409818, and to pay a simple rate of interest from the death of the policy holder till its date of realization on the 1/3rd share of sum assured i.e. Rs.2.00 lakhs(Two lakhs). within one month of receipt of this order, if not released earlier.,failing which action will be initiated as per the provisions of C.P.Act,1986.
Complaint is allowed in part on contest against OP No.1 and ex-parte against OP No.2 & 3.
No order as to cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 17th day of December,2018.
I, agree.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
