Haryana

StateCommission

A/202/2015

RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DAYA CHAND - Opp.Party(s)

ROHIT GOSWAMI

08 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      202 of 2015

Date of Institution:      02.03.2015

Date of Decision :       08.01.2016

 

1.     Branch Manager Reliance Life Insurance Ist Floor Bhatia business point near Union Bank, Agra Chowk, Palwal, District Palwal.

 

2.     Reliance Life Insurance 2^nd Floor, Kotak Mahindra Sector-16, Faridabad.

 

3.     Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited (Registration No.121) registered office H Block 1^st Floor Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, New Mumbai, Maharashtra-400710.

 

                                     Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Daya Chand s/o Sh. Ram Swaroop, Resident of Village Khairal 7/1/2 Biswa, Tehsil Chhata, District Mathura.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Rohit Goswami, Advocate for appellants.

                             None for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

This appeal calls in question the correctness of the order dated January 19^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby Consumer Complaint No.07 of 2014 filed by Daya Chand-complainant/respondent was allowed directing Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties/appellants, to pay Rs.4,50,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, that is, January 14^th, 2014, till its realisation, Rs.10,000/-on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5,500/- litigation expenses.

2.      The respondent filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging that Gulkandi was his mother. She purchased a Life Insurance Policy Annexure-1 under Reliance Life Insurance Classic (RLIC) Plan-II (Regular) from the Insurance Company on July 16^th, 2012. She paid initial premium Rs.7500/- vide receipt Exhibit C-4.  Gulkandi (hereinafter referred to ‘the Life Assured’) died on January 10^th, 2013. The respondent being the nominee, filed claim (Exhibit C-2) with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated vide letter dated August 30^th, 2013 (Annexure-11) on the ground that the life assured had died on April 12^th, 2011, that is, before the date of purchasing the Insurance Policy. So, the respondent was not entitled to the sum assured.

3.      Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent. Service was effected and the respondent was represented by Shri Gaurav Sharma, Advocate on October 7^th, 2015. Today none has appeared on behalf of the respondent. On the last date of hearing, that is, November 23^rd, 2015, the position was the same.

4.      Indisputably, the Insurance Policy (Annexure-1) is dated July 16^th, 2012 which was allegedly purchased by the life assured. It is also not in dispute that the life assured is no more in this World. The question for determination before this Commission is whether the Insurance Policy was purchased by the life assured during her life or not?

5.      The District Forum relied upon the Death Certificate Exhibit C-1 issued by Government of Uttar Pradesh to negate the plea raised by the Insurance Company that the life assured died on April 12^th, 2011 instead of January 10^th, 2013.

6.      To refute the above said certificate (Exhibit C-1), the Insurance Company has relied upon another Death Certificate (Annexure-10) issued by Government of Uttar Pradesh with an endorsement that wrong date of death of Gulkandi was mentioned in the Death Certificate and therefore the same should not be taken into consideration.

7.      The Insurance Company has not only relied upon this certificate (Annexure-10), rather has also placed on record the report of the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kharail (Annexure-4) wherein it was stated that Gulpandi died on April 12^th, 2011. This certificate (Annexure-4) is also supported by (Annexure-3) copy of Death Registrar of Anganwadi, wherein the date of death of Gulkandi has been mentioned as April 12^th, 2011. The matter does not rest here. As per the amended electoral roll (Anneuxre-9) published on January 02^nd, 2012, Gulkandi expired prior to the publication of said list.  With this overwhelming evidence it is proved to the hilt that Gulkandi had expired on 12^th April, 2011 and not on 10^th January, 2013, as pleaded by the respondent.

8.      In view of the above, it is held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the sum assured to the complainant. Hence, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 08.01.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL