Punjab

Sangrur

CC/16/2015

Gurpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara HSBC OBC Life Ins. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri G.S. Shergill

25 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.    016  

                                                Instituted on:      08.01.2015

                                                Decided on:       25.05.2015

 

 

Gurpreet Singh aged about 38 years son of Gurdev Singh, resident of Village Lassoi, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.             Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Insurance Company Limited, Unitech Trade Centre, 2^nd Floor, C-Block, Sushant Lok, Phase-I, Sector 43, Gurgaon through its Managing Director.

2.             Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Lassoi, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

 

For the complainant    :       Shri G.S.Shergill, Adv.

For OP No.1              :       Shri G.P.Sharma, Advocate.

For OP No.2              :       Shri Sumesh Garg, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Gurpreet Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that father of the complainant, namely, Shri Gurdev Singh availed the services of the OPs by getting himself insured from OP number 1 for Rs.5,00,000/- vide policy number 0025076412 with date of commencement as 14.4.2011. It is further averred that the father of the complainant had to pay the premium of Rs.50,000/- per year for ten years and Smt. Balwinder Kaur, mother of the complainant was the nominee. It is further averred that Smt. Balwinder Kaur also died on 22.6.2013.  It is further averred that unfortunately on 29.6.2014, father of the complainant Shri Gurdev Singh (referred to as DLA in short) also died on 29.6.2014.  As such, the complainant being the beneficiary of the DLA lodged the claim with the OP number 2 and submitted all the relevant documents for releasing of the claim amount.  It is further averred that the OPs despite submission of all the documents, failed to release the claim amount. It is further averred that the complainant also got served legal notice dated 10.11.2014 through his counsel and the Ops sent its reply on 21.11.2014 and demanded more documents. It is further stated that the complainant submitted all the documents, but no claim was paid. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to  release the claim amount of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of death of the DLA i.e. 29.6.2014 till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the present complaint is premature,  that the complaint is false, malicious, incorrect and is nothing but an abuse of process of law, that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands.  Further the OP number 1 has stated that the DLA obtained the policy after understanding all the terms and conditions of the policy. It is further stated that the DLA obtained Canara HSBC Oriental Bank of Commerce Life Insurance Company Grow Smart Plan by depositing the annual premium of Rs.50,000/-, which was to be paid for ten years.  It is stated that based on the information provided and declaration made in the proposal form and on receipt of the premium amount, policy bearing number 00250776412 was issued with the date of commencement of risk as 14.4.2011 to the DLA.  It is further admitted that the policy in question was delivered to the DLA and thereafter the OP received the death claim intimation dated 9.7.2014, whereby the OP number 1 came to know that the DLA died on 29.6.2014 and the claim was filed by the complainant being the son of the DLA.  It is further stated that on receipt of claim documents, the Ops requested the complainant vide letter dated 22.10.2014 to provide succession certificate alongwith other relevant documents to process the claim, but the same were not provided by the complainant. It is further stated that the OP is still ready to assess and examine the validity of the claim of the complainant, provided he provides all the relevant documents to the OPs.  It is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. However, any deficiency in service on the part of OP number 1 has been denied.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint and that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the OP into uncalled litigation.  On merits, it is stated that the OP had prepared the demand draft of Rs.50,000/- on 24.3.2011 in favour of OP number 1 on the request of the DLA on 10.4.2012. It is further stated that another draft for Rs.50,000/- was prepared on the request of the DLA on 6.5.2013 and Rs.50,000/- was transferred in the account of OP number 1 on the request of DLA, policy holder.  It is stated that the dispute is between the complainant and OP number 1. However, any deficiency in service on the part of OP number 2 has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of death certificate of Gurdev Sigh, Ex.C-3 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-5 copies of postal receipts, Ex.C-6 copy of reply of legal notice, Ex.C-7 copy of death certificate of Balwinder Kaur, Ex.C-8 copy of claim form, Ex.C-9 copy of aadhar card, Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-11 copies of ration card, Ex.C-12 copy of PAN card, Ex.C-13 to Ex.C-14 copies of Adhar card, Ex.C-15 copy of P form, Ex.C-16 copy of H form, Ex.C-17 to Ex.C-18 copies of affidavits, Ex.C-19 to Ex.C-21 affidavits and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 copy of policy, Ex.OP1/2 copy of death claim form, Ex.Op1/3 copy of letter, Ex.OP1/4 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit, Ex.OP2/2 copy of reply of legal notice, Ex.OP2/3 copy of postal receipt and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that father of the complainant (DLA) had purchased the policy in question from the OPs.  The mother of the complainant was the nominee under the said policy, but both the policy holder and nominee had died during the subsistence of the policy and present complaint has been filed by the complainant being the legal heir of the DLA.  The other two legal heirs Smt. Harwinder Kaur and Smt. Sarbjit Kaur, daughters of the DLA had already relinquished their right in favour of the complainant vide their affidavit, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-17.  But, the Ops have not settled the claim till today on the pretext that the complainant has not produced the succession certificate to the OPs.

 

7.             In the written reply, OP number 1 has admitted the policy and has further submitted that the complainant has not submitted the succession certificate demanded vide letter dated 22.10.2014, so the claim of the complainant was not settled.

 

8.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the documents placed on record, we find that the main point of controversy in the present complaint is with regard to the requirement of the succession certificate of the DLA as the nominee in this policy has already been died.  In the written reply, OP number 1 has mentioned “that on receipt of claim documents, the OP requested the complainant vide letter dated 22.10.2014 to provide the succession certificate along with other documents to process the claim”.  But, during the arguments, Op number 1 has pleaded only for the requirement of the succession certificate.

 

9.             We have also gone through the document Ex.OP1/1 and find nothing whereby the succession certificate was very necessary for settlement of the claim in such like cases.  The complainant has submitted his own affidavit and affidavits of his other two sisters, namely, Smt. Harwinder Kaur and Smt. Sarabjit Kaur, who relinquished their share in favour of the complainant and the same was submitted to OP number 1 along with other required claim documents.  But, instead of confirming the legal heirs of the DLA by way of personal investigations, OP number 1 preferred to have easy approach of demanding the succession certificate and had kept on lingering the settlement of the claim of the complainant and that too when there was no specific clause in the terms and conditions of the policy and the complainant has to file the present complaint in order go get his rightful claim.  This all shows that insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline the genuine claim on one pretext or the other.

 

 

10.            OP number 1 has also taken the plea that the complaint is premature as the claim has neither been repudiated nor settled, but in the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India delivered in United India Insurance Company Limited versus MKJ Corporation 1998(2) CLT 489, wherein it has been held that reasonable time of two months would be justified for the insurance company to take decision from the date of submission of report of surveyor, whether the claim required to be settled or rejected.  But, in the present case, sufficient time has already elapsed, but the Ops have not even accepted or rejected the claim of the complainant.

 

 

11.            The counsel for the complainant has also cited the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi titled as Shanti Devi versus Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank 2006(3) CLT 595, wherein it has been observed that “ a solution-cum-justice oriented approach is need of the hour”.  One should not forget that it requires time, energy and money to obtain a succession certificate.  Parties are not to be forced to take such a long expensive and tiresome route, when the problem can be solved otherwise protecting he interest of all for the satisfaction of their equitable rights. The Hon’ble Chhattisgarh State Consumer Commission in Rajiv Kumar Singh versus Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Appeal No.116/2011, decided on 23.7.2011 dealing in the similar situation where the insured as well as his nominee had died, it was opined that since in that case the death certificate of both the DLA and nominee were produced and the complaint was filed by the LRs of the deceased insured, it was observed that the       LRs are entitled to receive the benefits of the insurance policy.

 

 

12.            In the light of above discussion, we find that OP number 1 is deficient in service and accordingly we allow the complaint and direct Op number 1 to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint i.e. 08.01.2015 till realisation.  We further direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.15,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

 

13.            This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                May 25, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member