DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.
………………..
Presents:-
- Sri A.K.Purohit, President.
- Smt. S.Rath, Member.
Dated, Bolangir the 9th day of April 2018.
C.C.No.37 of 2017.
1.Ashish Kumar Sahu, age-25 years son of late Krushna Chandra Sahu,
Resident of Arkabahali Pada, P.O/P.S-Bhawanipatna,Dist-Kalahandi.
At present working as a Helper, Govt.Press, Bolangir Branch,
At-/P.O/P.S/Dist- Bolangir,
2.Debasish Sahu, age-17 years,minor, represented through brother guardian
Ashish Kumar Sahu, Complainant No.1 vide Guardianship Certificate
Granted by Collector, Bolangir.
.. .. .. Complainants.
-Versus-
1.Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India
(OGSSS) Deptt. Division Office at Nuapatna,Cuttack.
P.O/P.S/Dist- Cuttack.
2.The D.D.O.(Forms) Printing Stationary & Publication,
Madhupatna, Cuttack, P.O/P.S/Dist- Cuttack.
.. .. .. Opp.Parties.
Advocate for the Complainant-M/S. Sri B.C.Pradhan & Associates.
Advocate for O.P.No.1 - Sri G.C.Behera.
Advocate for the O.P.No.2 - None.
Date of filing of the case-26.07.2017.
Date of order - 09.04.2018
ORDER.
Sri A.K.Purohit, President.
1. Both the complainants being the legal heirs and successors of deceased Policy Holder late Krushna Chandra Sahu have preferred this case jointly alleging deficiency in insurance service. Late Krushna Ch.Sahu while he was in service in the office of O.P.No.2 had taken a LI.C policy from O.P.No.1 vide Policy No.592170822 and monthly premium for the said policy was deducted from his salary regularly. The said policy begins from 23.11.2009 and its maturity date is 23.11.2014. The said policy covers death benefit assured amount for Rs 1,00,000/-/ After the death of the policy holder (father of the complainant) and the nominee (mother of the complainants), the complainant came to know about the policy on dated 17.6.2016 when he joints in the service under rehabilitation scheme and had made several correspondence to the authorities of O.P.No.1 for settlement of his claim. But although the complainant has completed all the formalities, the O.P.No.1 has not yet settled his claim. Hence the complaint.
2. The O.P.No.2 appeared in response to the call of the forum and filed a statement showing the premium particulars deducted by him from the salary of the deceased policy holder for the period from 01/2010 to 10/2011 against the policy OGSSS No.592170822 of late Krushna Ch. Sahu.
3. The O.P.1 contested the case by filing his written version. According to O.P.No.1, the complainant has not produced the succession certificate along with claim form-E and hence the claim has not been settled. Although the O.P.1 had sent several letter for completing all formalities the complainant did not respond to the same. Hence the O.P.1 claims no deficiency in service on his part.
4. Both the parties did not advanced any argument and have submitted that their pleadings may be treated as their argument. Perused the pleadings and material available on record. It is evident from the documents filed by the complainant that, late Krushna Chandra Sahu, while he was in service in the post of Helper in Govt. Press ,Balangir, he had taken a LIC’s Jeevan Saral (with profits) policy which commence from 23.11.2009 and the risk begins from the same date. The said policy also covers death benefit, accident benefit and other benefits. The sum assured for the death benefit is Rs 1,00,000/-. The wife of the Policy holder Rebati Sahu is the nominee of the said policy. It is also evident from the report of the D.D.O. that the premium amount was deducted from the salary of the deceased policy holder by the D.D.O. In para-2 of the written version the O.P.1 has admitted that the nominee under the policy has predeceased the deceased life assured. Therefore it is believed that the policy holder and his nominee have died as per the contention of the complainant.
5 Now with these admitted facts and evidence available on record the only point for consideration is whether delay in settlement of the claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. It is a fact that the policy covers death benefit. It is also a fact that the policy holder and its nominee both have died. In his written version the O.P.1 has not specifically denied that the complainant’s are not the heir and successors of the deceased policy holder. The complainant has produced the legal heir certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Kalahandi which is not disputed by the O.P.No.1.The O.P.1 has also not produced any rebuttal evidence to show that the complainants are not the successor of the deceased policy holder. Therefore asking for any certificate cannot be said to be a genuine grounds for non settlement of the claim. Further it is seen from the order dt.10.1.2018 that the complainant has complied the requirement of O.P.No.1 is form –E. The statement of the D.D.O available on record shows the payment of premium upto 10/11. Therefore the stand taken by the O.P.1 can not said to be fair. Therefore delay in settlement of the claim of the complainants, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.P.1.
Hence ordered;
The O.P.No.1 is directed to settle the claim of the complainants within one month from the date of receipt of this order and to pay the death benefit assured amount of Rs 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh) along with interest there on @ 10% P.A. from the date of death i.e 26.10.2011 and cost of Rs 2,000/- ,to the complainant, within the said period ,failing which the entire amount shall carry an interest @ 9% P.A till payment.
Order pronounced in open forum this the 9th day of April 2018.
(S.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
