DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, BOLANGIR 

Presents:-

                 1     Sri A.K.Purohit, President

                 2     Smt. S.Rath, Member.

                 Dated , Bolangir the 20^th day of August’ 2018                                          

                 C.C. No. 42 of 2017

  Maya Sahu aged about 50 years, W/o- Late Chhinu Sahu

  R/o- Rampur. Po/Ps- Rampur, Ps- Civil Judgeship Loisingha

  District- Bolangir

                                     -Versue-

  Chief Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India

  At- Chandrasekhar Nagar, Bolangir Town, District- Bolangir

        Adv. For the Complainant: - Sri  A.K. Mishra

        Adv. For O.P                         :- Sri G.C. Behera                        

        Date  of filing of the Case  :- 14.09.2017

        Date of Order                       :- 20.08.2018

        JUDGMENT

        Sri A.K.Purohit,  President

1.         The complainant being the nominee of deceased policy holder Chhinu Sahu has preferred this case alleging deficiency in insurance service.

2.        The case of the complainant is that, her husband late Chhinu Sahu had taken a policy from the O.P. vide policy No.594475369 dated 18.8.2011. The said policy is a Endowment assurance with profit with DAB policy and the sum assured for the said policy is Rs. 50,000/-. The policy covered accidental death of the policy holder. The policy holder late Chhinu Sahu died in a road accident on dated 5.2.2016. The son of the policy holder Binod Sahu had reported this accidental death of Chhinu Sahu  before the Loisingha P.S. on dated 7.2 2016 . The Complainant being the nominee of the policy holder had submitted the claim before the O.P. for payment of the claim amount but the O.P. has not considered the same. The complainant alleges that although seven months has already been passed from the date of submission of the claim the O.P has not paid the claim amount and hence the complainant has preferred this case alleging deficiency in service by the O.P.

3.          The O.P. has contested the case by filing his written version. In his version the O.P. has admitted the claim of the complainant and submitted that although the accidental death claim of the complainant has already been settled for a sum of Rs. 60,500/- the same has not been paid due to non submission of discharge voucher by the complainant.

4.         Heard both the parties. Perused the documentary evidence available on record. In support of her case the complainant files the affidavit evidence of one Krushna Sahu and her own affidavit. In support of his case the O.P. has not produce any evidence either by affidavit or otherwise.

5.         It is an admitted fact that Late Chhinu Sahu had taken a LIC policy from the O.P. vides policy No. 594475369. It is also an admitted fact that the nominee of the deceased policy holder is entitled to the benefit under the policy. The O.P. has also admitted in his written version that, the claim of the complainant has been settled for a sum of Rs. 60,500/-. With these admitted fact the point for consideration is whether submission of a discharge voucher by the complainant is mandatory for payment of the claim amount or not. There is no evidence available on record to show that the O.P. has asked for discharge voucher at any point of time. In support of his stand the O.P. has also not produce any evidence either by way of affidavit or otherwise to show that discharge voucher is mandatory for payment of the claim amount. The copy of the terms and conditions of the policy available on record does not disclose about submission of discharge voucher. Hence the stand taken by the O.P. cannot be believed and the O.P. is under obligation to pay the settled amount to the nominee of the deceased policy holder.

6.         Under the aforesaid discussion and material available on record nonpayment of the settled amount by the O.P. to the complainant for about seven months amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the complainant. Hence the complainant sustain financial loss and is entitled to interest. Hence

                                                               O R D E R

               The O.P. is directed to pay Rs. 60,500/-( sixty thousands and five hundred ) with interest at the rate of 10% P.A from the date of death i.e. from 5.2.2016 till payment to the complainant along with Rs.5000/-( five thousand ) towards cost within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Accordingly the case is disposed of.

Pronounced in the open Forum today the 20^th day of august 2018.

          (S.RATH)                                                                     (A.K.Purohit)

                           MEMBER                                                                                       PRESIDENT