View 32914 Cases Against Life Insurance
View 32914 Cases Against Life Insurance
Md. Shiraj Khan filed a consumer case on 17 Aug 2022 against Branch Manager,HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co Ltd in the Cuttak Consumer Court. The case no is CC/111/2021 and the judgment uploaded on 07 Sep 2022.
IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.
C.C.No.111/2021
Md. Shiraj Khan,
S/O:Late Md. Alam Khan,
Near Airtel Office,Berhampur,
Dist:Ganjam-760001,Odisha,
At present Royal Hotel,Buxibazar,
P.O:Buxibazar,P.S:Mangalabag,
Town/Dist:Cuttack-7653001. ... Complainant.
Vrs.
HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,
At:Berhampur,Dist:Ganjam.
2. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,
11th Floor,Lodha Excelus,Apollo Mills Compound,
N.M.Jopshi Marg,Mahalaxmi,
Mumnbai-400011.
Consumer Affairs Department,
United India Towers,9th Floor,3-5-817/818,
Hyderabad-500029, State:Telengana. ...Opp. Parties.
Present: Sri Debasish Nayak,President.
Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.
Date of filing: 07.07.2021
Date of Order: 17.08.2022
For the complainant: Mr. B.M.Mohapatra,Adv. & Associates.
For the O.Ps. : None.
Sri Debasish Nayak,President.
Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in nutshell is that his father was a policy holder of the O.Ps having Policy No.16041590 dt.26.4.2021 but his father had failed to pay the yearly premium due to his illness on 26.4.17 and had thereby paid 4 consecutive premiums only. Due to the illness of his father the 5th and last premium could not be paid. The O.Ps No.1 & 2 had deducted a sum of Rs.7409.22p from the bank account of the complainant towards the fine for delay payment over the insured policy. After recovering from illness, the father of the complainant had written to the O.P NO.1 for continuing his policy with delayed fine amount and to revive the said policy but the O.P No.1 had not responded. The matter went before the Ombudsman at Bhubaneswar on 22.12.17. On 27.3.19 the order of the Ombudsman wasreflected in directing O.Ps no.1 & 2 to revive the policy by paying all the outstanding premiums. Accordingly, the father of the complainant had written to the O.P for revival of the policy as per the direction of the Ombudsman. On 27.2.2020 the father of the complainant had died. Thereafter, the complainant had approached the O.Ps for getting the benefit of the insurance policy of his deceased father but inspite of his efforts, he could not succeed. The complainant being the son of his deceased father and one of the legal heirs of his father, had approached this Commission being the beneficiary over the policy and had sought for compensation towards deficiency in service to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-, a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards harassment and a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards legal expenditure from the O.Ps.
The complainant has filed xerox copy of his letter addressed to the Branch Operation, HDFC Life, Berhmpur,Ganjam regarding continuing auto surrender policy plan no.16041590. The complainant has also filed Xerox copy of the order of the Insurance Ombudsman dt.27.1.2019, death certificate of Md. Alam Khan, S/O:Karimuddin Khan in order to prove his case.
2. Having not contested this case, the O.Ps were set exparte vide order dt.12.4.2022.
3. The points for determination in this case are as follows:
i. Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?
ii. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.?
iii. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?
Issue No.ii:
Issue no.2 being the important issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.
It is admitted fact that the complainant’s father had defaulted in paying the 5th year Insurance premium. The complainant has not produced any evidence to the effect that the O.Ps 1 & 2 had deducted fine amount from his bank account for default payment in respect of his father’s policy. So also the complainant has not produced any evidence to the effect that O.Ps No. 1 & 2 had deposited a sum of Rs.7,409.22 in his bank A/c for settlement of claim amount . The complainant has not produced any evidence vis-avis policy conditions to the effect that the O.Ps No.1 & 2 cannot close the policy due to non-payment of premium amount as due. The complainant in one hand has stated that his father was a defaulter for the 5th yearly premium and for which the O.Ps have deducted fine from his bank account for delay towards payment of insurance premium and in other hand, he has stated that his father had approached the O.Ps for revival of policy on payment of fine. Hence, case of the complainant is doubtful as he has not approached before this Commission with clean hands and has thus failed to prove his case. Accordingly, it cannot be held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps by repudiating the policy.
Issue no.i & iii.
In view of the above discussions made above, the complaint case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed. Hence, it is so ordered;
ORDER
The case is dismissed exparte against the O.Ps. but as regards to facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.
Order pronounced in the open court on the 17th day of August,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.
Sri Debasish Nayak
President
Sri Sibananda Mohanty
Member.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
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.