DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,BOLANGIR.
………………
Presents:-
- Sri A.K.Purohit, President.
- Smt. S.Rath, Member.
Dated Bolangir the 5th day of February 2018.
C.C.No.36 of 2017
Suresh Barge, son of late Chainka Barge, Resident of village-Sindriabahal
P.O & P.S- Tusura, Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
1.Divisional Manager, Division Office, L.I.C.of India,
Jeevan Prakash, Ainthapali, Sambalpur-768004.
2.Kisore Chandra Meher son of Basudev Meher.
Resident of village-Barkani P.O.Jarasingha
P.S-Tusura, Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Opp.Parties.
Adv. for the Complainant- Sri B.B.Baghel & S.Bagarty.
Adv. for the O.P.No.1 - Sri S.S.Mishra & Associates.
Adv. for the O.P.No.2 - Sri P.S.Nanda.
Date of filing of the case- 26.07.2017
Date of order - 5.02.2018.
JUDGMENT.
Sri A.K.Purohit, President.
1 The complainant being the nominee of his deceased mother Chainka Barge has preferred this case alleging deficiency in insurance service. The case of the complainant is that, his deceased mother Chainka Barge had taken a life Insurance policy from the O.P.No.1 vide policy No.594971834 and assured amount is Rs 1,50,000/- and paid the premium amount. The deceased life assured was died on dt.14.9.2015 and after her death the complainant being the nominee has submitted the death claim along with all required documents. But the O.P No.1 repudiated the claim on the ground of suppression of material facts relating to the age of the deceased life assured. The complainant alleges that after accepting the proposal repudiation of the claim by the O.P.1 is unfair. Hence the complaint.
2 Both the O.Ps have filed their written version separately. According to O.P.1 the death of the life assured is within a very short period from the date of commencement of the policy and hence the claim is an early claim. Therefore to ascertain the genuineness of the claim the O.P.1 found from the certificate of the Head Master Govt. New U.P. School Barla that, the life assured had produced a forged School certificate in support of her age and hence the O.P.1 repudiated the claim. The O.P.1 claims no deficiency in service on his part . According to O.P.2 he being the agent had submitted the proposal form along with the documents produced by the life assured which was duly accepted by the O.P.1 and hence he is not liable for any claim filed by the complainant.
3 Heard both the parties. Perused the pleadings and material available on record. Although no preliminary objection has been raised in the written version, during course of argument the learned advocate for the O.P.1 submitted that for the same cause of action the case of the complainant was disposed off by the Permanent Lok Adalat and hence this case is not maintainable. It is seen from the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat that, the case was not pressed by the complainant and no order has been passed on merit. Even if the case is disposed off by the Lok Adalat there is no bar for filing a consumer complaint for deficiency in service The remedy before this forum is an additional remedy and hence the case is maintainable in this Forum.
4 Coming to the merit of the case, it is seen from the repudiation letter that the ground of repudiation is suppressing the material facts relating to the age of the deceased life assured on production of forged school Certificate at the time of submitting the proposal form. It is seen from the material available on record that, relying on the certificate of the Head Master Govt. New U.P.School, Barla, the O.P.1 come to a conclusion that, the life assured had produced a false certificate. There is no evidence available on record to show that the certificate of the Head Master is a genuine one. The O.P.1 has also not produced the affidavit evidence of the officer who has obtained the certificate from the Head master. The O.P.1 has not considered any other documents like voter I.D or statement of any other person of the co-villagers of the deceased policy holder. On perusal of the Xerox copy of the voter I.D available on record it is seen that the policy holder was 35 years of age on dt.1.1.94 which shows that, the date of birth mentioned in the proposal form is seems to be correct. Therefore, repudiation of the claim relaying on the certificate of the Headmaster cannot be said to be fair.
5 There is no evidence available on record to show that the O.P.1 had properly investigated relating to age by the time of accepting the proposal. The O.P.2 has also admitted in his version that after due verification the insurance proposal has been accepted. Hence the O.P.1 cannot escape from its liability. Once the insurance policy is accepted the O.P.1 is under obligation to pay the assured amount.
6 Under the aforesaid discussion and evidence available on record it is concluded that the repudiation of the death claim of the complainant is unjust and the O.P.1 is liable to pay the assured amount .Hence ordered.
ORDER.
The O.P.1 is directed to pay Rs 1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order along with interest @ 10% P.A. from the date of repudiation i.e from 8.8.2016 till payment. Further the O.P.1 is directed to pay Rs 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) towards litigation expenses within the aforesaid period.
Accordingly the case is disposed of.
Order pronounced in open forum this the 5th day of February 2018.
(S.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
