DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 28th day of June, 2018
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
C.D Case No. 67 of 2016
Smt. Pramila Das
W/o Lambodar Das
Vill: Dahanasuni
Po: Garadpur
Ps/Dist: Bhadrak
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. The Branch Manager
Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bhadrak Branch
At: Bonth Chhak
Po/Ps/Dist: Bhadrak
2. The Block Education Officer, Bhadrak
At: Jagannathpur (Near Bhadrak College Gate)
Po/Ps/Dist: Bhadrak (T)
3. Ghunurani Das
W/o Late Prafulla Das
Vill: Dahanasuni
Po: Garadpur
Ps/Dist: Bhadrak
…………………………..Opp. Parties
Advocate For the Complainant: Sri D. Nayak & Others
Advocate For the OP No. 1: Sri D. Panda
Advocate For the OP No. 2: Sri P.K Senapati
Advocate For the OP No. 3: Sri Nirakar Jena & Others
Date of hearing: 26.01.2017
Date of order: 28.06.2018
SRI RAGHUNATH KAR, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the complaint alleging against the O.Ps for deficiency of service, disclosing the following facts, that the complainant is the mother of deceased Prafulla Das who was the policy holder of policy No- 583844898. The complainant has challenged the inaction of OP No. 1 & 2. The complainant’s son while working as Assistant Teacher in Bije Gangadharpur UGME School (Plan/Term. 165/15/15) for an assured sum of Rs 75,000/- for a period of 15 years having it’s date of commencement as 03.01.2013 and date of maturity as 01/2018 under Monthly Salary Saving Scheme. As per the policy condition the monthly installment was so fixed at Rs 306/- per month which was payable to the OP No. 1 insurance corporation in every month by the OP No. 2, the employer of the deceased policy holder after being deducted from the salary of the policy Holder-Employer as the said policy. It is to submit here that at the time of opening of the policy the name of the OP No. 3 has been reflected as the nominee to the said policy. Accordingly the monthly premiums were being deducted from the salary of the complainant’s son by the Employer and were deposited with the OP No. 1 insurance company.
That, the complainant’s and Ghunurani Das being the legal heir & successor in interest as mother & wife of deceased policy holder Prafulla Das. That, the complainant submitted all the relevant documents like death certificate & legal heir certificate etc. to the OP No. 1 for early settlement of claim and was requesting the OP No. 1 disbursing the settlement amount to the complainant and OP No. 3 equally. But on 27.04.2016 the OP No. 1 refused to entertain the claim as non depositing the premium for a long period the policy has been lapsed. “That, deduction of premium from the salary of the employee (Prafulla Das) was a matter between employer (OP No. 2) and the op no. 1 (LIC) and the insured not at fault for nonpayment of premium for the relevant period. That, the law is well settled that Employer under the Salary Saving Scheme acts as an agent of LIC while deducting premium amount from salary of Employee and failure on part of employer binds LIC of its liability to pay policy amount”. That, under the terms & conditions of the policy the OP No. 3 being the nominee under the policy and the complainant being the legal heir as mother of Prafulla Das are entitled to the claims.
The cause of action arose on dt. 24.11.2014 when the policy holder has been died and 27.04.2016 the OP No. 1 refused to entertain the claim and disburse the claim amount therein “as non depositing the premium for a long period the policy has been lapsed”.
Hence the complainant has sought for the relief as follows:-
1. The OP No. 1 be directed to settle the claim under the monthly Salary Saving Scheme in favour of the complainant and OP No. 3 being the legal heir and nominee of Prafulla Das and to pay the amount due & benefits under the aforesaid policy to the complainant and OP No. 3 as entitled to share half each out of the aforesaid policy.
2. The OP No. 1 & 2 be directed to pay Rs 80,000/- towards mental agony & unnecessary harassment.
3. To grant other reliefs what the complainant is entitled to.
The documents filed by the complainant as follows (Xerox copies):-
1. The death certificate of deceased Prafulla Das issued by Dept. of Health & Family Welfare Bhadrak Municipal Council on 01.12.2014- 1 sheet- Annexure- 1.
2. Legal Heir certificate of Late Prafulla Das issued on 03.02.2015 by the Tahasildar Bhadrak- 1 sheet- Annexure- 2.
3. Status report of policy No- 583844898- 1 sheet- Annexure- 3.
4. Periodical Increment Certificate, form No- O.T.C 24- 1 sheet- Annexure- 4.
5. Form No- O.T.C 25- 2 sheets- Annexure- 5.
6. Decision of High Court, Odisha- 3 sheets- Annexure- 6.
The OP No. 1 has filed his written version as follows:-
The OP No. 1 has denied all the allegations made by the complainant in the Para No- 1 & 2 of his written version. He has also refused that, the facts stated in Para No- 2, 3 & 4 of the complaint petition is admitted to the extent that, one Prafulla Das had taken an insurance policy on his own life for a sum assured of Rs 75,000/- under Table/Term 165/15 bearing No- 583844898 and date of commencement- 03.01.2013. The nominee under the policy is Ghunurani Das in relation to the policy holder- wife. The monthly premium under the policy is received up to the dt. 07/2014 with gap premium for the month of 03/2013 & 04/2013 it is necessary to mention here that the premium amount i.e. Rs 306/- per month has been deducted from the salary bills of deceased policy holder from March, 2013 to July, 2014. After that, i.e. from August, 2014 till the death of deceased policy holder, the OP has not received the premium of the deceased Prafulla Das. That, this OP denies all the facts stated in Para No- 5 of the complaint petition. As such the onus & burden of proof lies with the complaint to prove such allegations as stated. Besides that, it is an early claim within two years from date of commencement, hence it requires the compliances of the executed claim formalities of the nominee accordingly, which has not been received by this OP till date and hence the admissibility of the death claim is not decided. That, the facts stated Para No- 7 of the complaint petition are not true and strictly denied by this OP. As per the provisions under Section- 39 of the insurance Act 1938 the nominee is entitled to receive the claim amount and to give valid discharge for the same. For that this answering OP through its letter dt. 07.11.2015 and 20.07.2016 has intimated to the OP No. 3, the nominee under the policy under consideration to submit the executed formalities and the policy bond for early disposal of the matter, but the OP No. 3 till date has not submitted the required documents so that this answering OP is not in a position for processing the death claim under the policy No- 583844898 on life of Late Prafulla Das.
Hence the OP No. 1 has prayed for the dismissal of this case. The OP No. 1 has not filed any document in support of him.
The OP No. 2 has also filed his written version as follows:-
That the premium amount of Rs 306/- bearing policy No- 583844898 in favour of Late Prafulla Das, Ex- Teacher has been deducted from his monthly salary bill from March, 2013 to July, 2014 deposited in the LIC office to online. The office of this OP No. 2 is not an agent of LIC. The teachers are accepting the policy from LIC through LIC agent selected by their own. The teachers or employees working in different Elementary schools after accepting the policy from LIC they are responsible themselves for regular deduction of their LIC premiums in regular salary bills which they are also aware of it. Once premiums are deducted in their monthly salary bills this office will not neglect in depositing of the same in the LIC office as the bills are prepared, drawn and released through online. If the teacher concerned will not deduct his premium in the pay bill submitted through Headmaster after accepting a policy from LIC office via LIC agent selected by his own this office cannot be forced to deduct and deposit the said premium amount at his own risk in the office of the LIC. In the present case the policy holder after accepting the above mentioned policy from LIC started his monthly deduction in his monthly salary bill for the month of July- 2013 and the sad deduction as well as deposit of LIC premium continued up to July, 2014. Thereafter the teacher concerned remains on medical leave and during the level period he died. He has filed no relevant documents on behalf of him to support his stand.
Hence he has prayed for the exemption of OP No. 2 from this complaint.
The OP No. 3 has filed a written version of behalf of her and appeared in this Forum through her concerned advocate and stated that she is the soul nominee of the policy No- 583844898 initiated by her deceased husband. As the nominee and legal marred wife of the complainant she is solely entitled to the claimed amount. Her husband has initiated the insurance policy assured a sum of Rs 75,000/- for a period of 15 years. She has also admitted that the complainant is one of the legal hires of deceased Prafulla Das. There are also other legal hire except the wife (Nominee) such as Tapu Das, Pramila Das (Mother) and Lombodhar Das (Father). She has also claimed to be entitled of the entire claimed amount, non else. If any other nominee his claiming any part of the claimed amount he should take shelter under the Civil Court to get the relief.
Hence she has also prayed for dismissal of this complaint. The OP No. 2 has also filed a counter affidavit both of them have filed no document to support their stands.
OBSERVATION
We have already perused the complaint as well as the documents and the written argument filed by the complainant, further we have also perused the written version of OP No. 2 & 3. After long observation we have decided that according to the decision cited by the complainant of Hon’ble High Court of Odisha, decided by Justice R.K Patra & P. Mohanty (J) in the case of Satyabhama Behera Vrs Divisional Manager LIC on 12th April 2002 be decision arose out of write petition. It has been decided that “a mere nomination made U/s 39 of the Act does not have the effect of conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable under the Life Insurance Policy on the death of the assured. The nomination only indicates the hand which is authorized to receive the amount, on the payment of which the insurer gets a valid discharge of its liability under the policy. The amount, however, can be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with the law of succession governing them”.
It is further decided that A Bench of this Court in O.J.C No. 12557 of 1996 (disposed of on 11.09.1997) on the basis of the aforesaid ratio of the Supreme Court has held that under the law of succession applicable to the parties of that case, the widow of the deceased policy holder would be entitled to half of the total amount payable under the policy although she was not the nominee.
The aforesaid being the legal position we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant and OP No. 3 are entitled to share half each out of the amount admissible under the policy.
Hence it has been decided that the complainant & other legal heirs of the deceased (Father Lombodhar Das & Son Tapu Das) of the deceased Prafulla Das to appear before the OP No. 1 (Branch Manager, LIC of India, Bhadrak) within 30 days from the pronouncement of this order. We do here by direct the OP No. 1 to hand over half of the alleged amount to the OP No. 3 the wife and other half of the amount to the complainant & other legal heirs. Hence it is ordered;
ORDER
The complaint be and the same is allowed on contest. The OP No. 1 is here by directed to settle the claim in favour of the complainant out of which 50% amount be paid to OP No. 3 and other 50% be distributed among the complainant & other legal heirs equally. The OP No. 1 is also directed to pay the amount dues and benefits under the aforesaid policy to the complainant and other legal heirs, as well as OP No. 3 as per their entitlement. The OP No. 1 is further directed to pay Rs 3,000/- towards cost of the litigation to the complainant, within 30 days since the date of pronouncement of this order.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 28th June, 2018 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
