Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/179/2015

Surinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Exide Life Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Arun Kumar Adv.

29 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	179 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	01.04.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	29.04.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Surinder Kaur w/o Late Sh.Amarjit Singh, R/o H.No.409, Phase-VI, Mohali 160055

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Exide Life Insurance Company Limited, Formerly ING Vysya Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Managing Director, Ist Floor, Gold Hill Square No.690, Hosur Road, Begur Hobli, Bangalore 560068

 

    Second Address:-

 

Exide Life Insurance Company Limited, Formerly ING Vysya Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, SCO No.166-167, 2^nd Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector  9-C, Chandigarh.

 

2]  The Managing Director, Exide Life Insurance Company Limited, Formerly ING Vysya Life Insurance Company Limited, Ist Floor, Gold Hill Square No.690, Hosur Road, Begur Hobli, Bangalore 560068

   

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh.Arun Kumar, Advocate

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, Late Sh.Amarjit Singh, husband of the complainant, had took policy No.02668825 from OPs and paid regular premium.  It is averred that he was hail & hearty and  regularly attending his office and that OPs also got conducted medical of late Sh.Amarjit Singh before issuing the policy in his favour. Unfortunately, the husband of the complainant i.e. insured expired on 28.11.2013 leaving behind his wife, son and daughter as his legal heirs.  Thereafter, the complainant being the nomine of late Sh.Amarjit Singh, filed claim with the OPs, which was rejected by them on frivolous and baseless grounds knowing fully well that Amarjit Singh was regularly attending his office w.e.f. 20.11.1992 to 28.11.2013. Then a legal notice was sent to the OPs, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the above rejection/repudiation of the claim as illegal and deficiency in service.

 

2]       The Opposite Parties have filed reply and took objection that this Forum do not have the jurisdiction to try & adjudicate the present complaint and that another similar complaint filed by the complainant before Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh, was not entertained and returned to the complainant with instruction to approach appropriate Forum. It is stated that the life assured was issued the Term Insurance Policy No.02668825 on 17.4.2013, as per the proposal filled by him as well as believing the answers, statement and declaration made therein, as true & correct (Ann.A-3).  It is averred that the said policy commenced from 28.3.2013 and was to be matured on 28.3.2033.  It is also averred that the OPs on 15.1.2014 received the death claim intimation for the said policy along with death certificate issued thereby intimating Opposite Party about the Life Assured’s sad demise on 28.11.2013 due to silent attack.  It is pleaded that during the course of investigation, it revealed that the life assured was suffering from dependency syndrome due to some substance abuse and depression and was diagnosed as F11.2 as per ICD (Internal Classification Coding) which relates to mental and behavioral disorder due to psychoactive substance use (Dependence Syndrome) life Chronic alcoholism or drug addiction and F32.1 as per ICD, which states moderate depressive episode, which is clear from Out Patient Card dated 27.11.2012 (Ann.A-6).  Further, the Hospital Record/Discharge Summary collected from Punjab Health Systems Corporation, Ajitgarh (Ann.A-8) shows that from 1.4.2013 to 28.4.2013 the life assured remained admitted for the said ailment. It is also pleaded that on investigation, it was found that the life assured simultaneously applied for one more policy with ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. for sum assured of Rs.12.00 lacs which was not disclosed to the Opposite Party at the proposal stage (Ann.A-7).  It is further pleaded that the life assured gave wrong answers to the questions in the proposal form relating to applied polices, family history with habits and health related.  Therefore, the claim was repudiation on account of false as well as incorrect answers and willful suppression of material facts, which life assured was well aware with fraudulent intention to defraud the Opposite Party and gain unlawfully (Ann.A-9).  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3]       Replication has been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the reply. 

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

6]       The complainant has preferred the present complaint against the OPs on the score that her late husband Sh.Amarjit Singh had subscribed for a Life Insurance Policy from the Ops by submitting a proposal form dated 18.4.2013 (Ann.C-2) and that on his unfortunate demise, a claim was lodged with the OPs to release the insured amount, as per the policy subscribed for.  The OPs denied the claim of the complainant vide their repudiation letter dated 30.6.2014.  Thus giving rise to the present dispute. 

 

7]       The OPs have contested the claim of the complainant by filing detailed reply and took preliminary objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum for entertaining the present complaint, apart from other objection as well as the disqualification of the complainant to lodge claim, on merits also.

 

8]      It would be just & fair to deal with the preliminary objection of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum before dwelling into the merits of the case. 

 

9]       The complainant in her complaint has alleged that the proposal form was got signed from her late husband Sh.Amarjit Singh, by the agent of the OPs, at Chandigarh.  However, the same was sent to the Bangalore Office of the OPs for acceptance, before the policy was confirmed.  The copy of the proposal form found annexed as Ann.C-2 mentions the address of the proposer of the policy as #409, Phase-6, Mohali, Punjab and at Page NO.18 of the Paperbook, where the proposer had appended his signature the place Chandigarh is found mentioned, along with the signature of the Adviser of the Policy. 

 

10]      On the other hand, the OPs have contended that late husband of the complainant Sh.Amarjit Singh, had subscribed for another policy on 30.3.2013, a copy of proposal form of which is annexed with the reply, and that the complainant had on earlier occasion filed a consumer complaint before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh on 6.4.2015, which was dismissed on the point of territorial jurisdiction by the Hon’ble State Commission, vide its order dated 08.04.2015.  The OPs have claimed that both the policies are similar and were subscribed for in exactly identical manner, therefore, the view of the Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh in CC No.65 of 2015, decided on 8.4.2015, squarely covers the matter, pending adjudication before this Forum, through present complaint.

 

11]      We have gone through the documents placed on record by the parties and also the judgment of Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh in CC 65 of 2015, decided on 8.4.2015, and are of the view that the present consumer complaint of the complainant is completely identical to the one that was filed before the Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh, pertaining to another insurance policy, issued by the same OPs and all the contents of the proposal form and terms & conditions of the policy issued in the name of late husband of the complainant Sh.Amarjit Singh, are similar.  Therefore, not finding any reason to deviate from the findings of the Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh, we are also of the view that the present complaint too is barred by territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  Accordingly, the complaint stands dismissed on the point of territorial jurisdiction alone, with no order as cost.  However, the complainant shall be at liberty to approach any appropriate Court/Forum or Authority, to raise her grievances, if any, against the OPs. 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

29^th April, 2016                                                           Sd/-         

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER