DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT
C. C. No. : 76 of 2018
Date of Institution: 3.05.2018
Date of Decision : 10.06.2019
Balwinder Kaur aged about 65 years, w/o Iqbal Singh r/o Village Jalaleana, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.
...Complainant
Versus
- D.M. The Faridkot Central Co-operative Bank, Hukki Chowk, Faridkot.
- Manager, The Faridkot Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, Branch Sandhawan, District Faridkot.
- MD United India Insurance Company Ltd, Floor No.1, Near Punjab and Sindh Bank, Mall Road, Faridkot.
- Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd, Doctor Kalra, First Floor, Verka Chowk, Talwandi Sabon, Bathinda.
......OPs
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,
Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.
Present: Sh Paramjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,
Sh Bharat Bhushan Khurana, Ld Counsel for OP-1 & 2,
Sh Sandeep Sharma, Ld Counsel for OP-3 & 4.
ORDER
Ajit Aggarwal, President)
cc no.- 76 of 2018
Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of insurance claim on account of death of Iqbal Singh and for further directing them to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-.
2 Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that late Iqbal Singh husband of complainant retired from Police Department and he had a saving account bearing no.032210010300308 in the bank of OP-2 at Sandhawan and he was insured under Co-operative Bank Insurance Plan Saving Scheme. At the time of opening account and during insurance, it was assured that in case of death of account holder, his family or his nominee would receive Rs.1,50,000/-as insurance claim. Her husband duly paid all the instalments and completed requisite formalities at the time issuance of policy in question. It is submitted that deceased husband of complainant was suffering from hyper tension and cardiac disorder and his treatment was going on from Rajan Hospital, Kotkapura. Further submitted that one day husband of complainant felt suffocation and in the state of uneasiness, instead of taking his own medicine, he consumed pesticides placed in house and when he came to know this fact, he immediately apprised this fact to complainant and his daughter, who brought him to Rajan Hospital, Kotkapura, where he remained admitted for treatment
cc no.- 76 of 2018
for some days and died on 12.04.2016. Prior to his death, he duly got recorded his statement before Police that all his act of consumption of pesticides instead of his own medicine, happened due to inadvertence and no one is liable for the same. DDR no.15 dated 2.04.2016 to this effect was got recorded in Police Station, City, Kotkapura. Thereafter, complainant completed all the formalities and requested them to pay the insurance claim on account of death of her husband, but they did not do anything needful. They repudiated the claim of complainant on the ground that after enquiry, claim case of complainant has been closed by them. Even legal notice issued by complainant through his counsel, served no purpose. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the present complaint.
3 The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 8.05.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.
4 On receipt of the notice, OP-1 and 2 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint in hand is not maintainable in the present form as complainant is not the consumer of answering Ops. Answering OPs are only proforma respondents and they have no direct link with insurance matter. Insurance is a contract
cc no.- 76 of 2018
between insured and insurer and liability of bank is limited only to make payment of premiums from insured to the insurer. Moreover, The Sandhawan Agricultural Co-operative Society, Sandhwan from where deceased was issued card in question has not been impleaded as necessary party in present complaint and it is a case of non joinder of necessary parties. However, on merits, OP-1 and OP-2 have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and averred that Saving Bank Beema Yojna account holders of Co-operative bank are insured by the insurance company through bank. Bank provides the facility to account holder by opening SBBY account, operates the account of card holders of society, informs the insurance company in case of natural death of account holder, prepares a complete claim file after collecting all the necessary documents and forward the same to Insurance Company. All the correspondence between insured and insurer company is done through bank. Answering OPs have discharged their duties and completed all the requisite formalities. As soon as they received information regarding death of insured, they immediately reported the matter to Insurance Company vide letter dated 30.05.2016 alongwith other relevant documents. Liability of bank is only to pay the insurance premium of account holder to insurer and they have duly completed requisite formalities. Complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum that United India Insurance Company issued a letter to complainant to compete formalities and to provide some necessary documents to company, but complainant himself failed to
cc no.- 76 of 2018
comply the requirements, due to which claim of complainants was repudiated. It is further averred that payment of insurance claim is to be made by Insurance Company and bank has no role in disbursing this amount. Matter pertaining to insurance claim is between insured and insurer and bank has no role in accepting or rejecting the claim of complainant. All the other allegations of complainant are denied being wrong and incorrect and it is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. Prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.
5 OP-3 and OP-4 filed written statement wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is averred that claim of complainant is not payable as said Iqbal Singh did not die natural death, rather he died to consumption of pesticides and this fact was duly got recorded by deceased in DDR No.15 dated 2.04.2016. Claim is payable for accidental death and death due to consumption of pesticides is not covered under the insurance policy in question. It is averred that complicated questions of law and facts are involved in present complaint, which is not possible in summary proceedings of this Forum. This Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint and even complainant is not the consumer of answering OPs. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
cc no.- 76 of 2018
Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-11 and then, closed his evidence.
6 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the ld Counsel for OP-1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sikander Pal Singh as Ex OP-1, 2/1 and document Ex OP-1, 2/2 and then, closed the evidence. Ld counsel for OP-3 and OP-4 tendered in evidence affidavit of R N Bansal Ex Op-3,4/3 and documents Ex OP-3,4/3 to Ex OP-3, 4/18.
7 We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as Opposite parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents placed on record.
8 From the careful perusal of record and after going through evidence and documents produced on file by respective parties, it is observed that case of complainant is that her husband was insured with Ops and he was suffering from hypertension and cardiac disorder. He wrongly consumed pesticides available in home considering the same to be of his own medicine for curing high blood pressure and heart problem. All this happened inadvertently. DDR no.15 dated 2.04.2016 to this effect was got recorded in Police Station, City, Kotkapura. Grievance of the complainant is that after the death of her husband, she gave due intimation regarding his death to OPs and requested them to pay the insurance claim on account of death of her
cc no.- 76 of 2018
husband, but till now, OPs have not made single penny despite her repeated requests, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. In reply, plea taken by OP-1 and OP-2 is that insurance claim of complainant is payable by Insurance Company and they have no role in making payment of insurance claim. They have completed their duty of reporting the all the matter pertaining to death of Iqbal Singh insured to Insurance Company and they duly done their part of work and matter in dispute is between insured and insurer. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and OP-2 and they prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. On the other hand to contradict the pleadings of complainant, ld counsel for OP-3 and OP-4 stressed mainly on the point that claim sought by complainant is not payable to her as deceased Iqbal Singh has not died natural or accidental death, rather he has died due to consumption of pesticides which is not covered under the insurance claim. Death of Iqbal Singh husband of complainant occurred due to consumption of pesticides and this fact finds mention in DDR No.15 dated 2.04.2016. ld Counsel for OP-3 and 4 brought before the Forum document ExC-,3/5 i.e copy of legal opinion regarding accidental claim on account of death of Iqbal Singh wherein as per post mortem report, it is clearly mentioned that deceased Iqbal Singh was an educated retired person and he could easily recognize the difference between pesticides and live saving medicine. Moreover, even if it is presumed that Iqbal Singh consumed the said pesticide considering the same to be
cc no.- 76 of 2018
his own medicine for curing hypertension and for cardiac disorder, then even in that case, it is not palpable that he did not recognize the odour of pesticide or his life saving medicine. Deceased Iqbal Singh was well educated retired Police official and how is it possible that he could not differentiate between life saving drug and pesticides. Moreover, pesticides are not placed in a room alongwith other medicines and usually, it is the tendency of even common people to keep these insecticides or pesticides away from the reach of children and at separate isolated places like stores or outside living rooms or away from the house hold articles leaving little scope of these getting mixed with other things. Pesticides and other insecticides are kept inaccessible at hidden places. Further there is great variation in size of routine matter medicines like syrups, health tonics and other life saving drugs and in the size of pesticides bottles and thus, reason put forward by complainant for obtaining insurance claims on account of death of her husband that Iqbal Singh wrongly consumed pesticides considering the same to be his own medicine for curing hyper tension and cardiac disorder, does not seem appropriate and justifiable.
9 From the above discussion and keeping in view the record placed on file, this Forum is of considered opinion that complainant has failed to prove her case and no deficiency in service is made out on the part of OPs and therefore, complaint in hand stands
cc no.- 76 of 2018
hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 10.06.2019
(Param Pal Kaur) (Ajit Aggarwal)
Member President
