Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/230/2019

Kanchan Rani W/o Lt. Himanshu Bhardwaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Life Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Anil Aggarwal

28 Jun 2019

ORDER

Kanchan Rani etc. Vs. HDFC Life Insurance Etc.

Present:       Sh. Anil Aggarwal, Adv. for complainant.

 

                    Complaint is instituted on today. It be registered on registry on the Forum.

                  Alongwith the complaint an application has also been filed for interim relief. As per the own averments of the complainant, Sh. Himanshu Bhardwaj, husband of the complainant, father of the complainant No. 2 and son of complainant No. 3 purchased life Click 2 protect policy from respondent No. 1 bearing No. 16641959 bearing ID No. 66514247 (for short policy) and during his life time, Himanshu Bhardwaj was paying the premium and said Himanshu Bhardwaj, insured, was murdered on 18.04.2015 by some unknown person and when the complainant lodged their claim with the respondents qua the policy the respondent refused to pay the claim to the claimants, on the ground one Palak Sharma has also raised her claim, alleging herself nominee of insured.

                  Counsel for the complainant argued in case the respondent disburse the claim amount to anyone else including the alleged nominee Palak Sharma during the pendency of the complaint, then, the complainant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury and the respondents be restrained from disbursing the claim amount to anyone till pendency of the complaint.

               First of all, complainant has not attached the copy of policy with the complaint. In para No. 5, complainant alleged the respondent have not supplied the same to them. Question arises if the same was not supplied then how the complainants came to know its term and condition including client ID number. Assuming the version of the complainant as true to the extent of issuance of policy in favour of the insured Himanshu Bhardwaj since murdered on 18.04.2015, then it is not the case of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents when the imputations of the complainant are taken into account because complainants themselves in para No. 4 of the complaint alleged the one Palak Sharma also lodged her claim with the respondents alleging herself nominee of the deceased Himanshu Bhardwaj.  During the course of arguments, it has been conceded by the counsel that said Palak Sharma is the sister of deceased. In this way, it has clearly been established on the record that in fact the imputations leveled by the complainant do not fall within the ambit of consumer dispute. It is not to case of deficiency in service, rather, it is the case of dispute between the legal heirs of the insured on one hand and his nominee on the another hand and the adjudication of such like dispute is not and within the purview of Consumer Forum, rather, this issue is to be decided by Civil Court or Succession Court under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, so, complaint before the Forum is not maintainable and when the main complaint in itself is not maintainable before this Forum, consequently, application for interim relief is also not maintainable.

                     Without commenting anything further, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed being not maintainable before this Forum. The complainant shall be at liberty to knock the door of Civil Court of competing jurisdiction or Succession Court under Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as the case may be, if he is advised so. File be consigned to the records.

 

                                                                                                          President,

                                                                                            Distt & Sessions Judge (VRS)

                         L.Member                  Member                                 28.06.2019.