BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 103 of 2014
Date of Institution : 28.7.2014
Date of Decision : 14.9.2016
Jai Kishan aged 25 years son of Ram Partap @ Partap Singh, resident of village Sanchla, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad.
…Complainant.
Versus.
1. H.D.F.C. Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, 11th Floor, Lodha Excelus Apollo Mill Compound, N.M. Joshi Road, Mahalaxmi Mumbai-400011 through its Managing Director.
2. H.D.F.C. Standard Life Insurance Company Limited branch office 1st floor Classic Auto Care Sangwan Chowk, in front of Sharma Petrol Pump, Dabwali road, Sirsa, District Sirsa 125055 through its Branch Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.Lohia …………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Sukhbeer Dhaka, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Ashish Goyal, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, the case of the complainant is that father of the complainant namely Partap Singh son of Duni Ram, resident of village Sanchla, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad had obtained an insurance policy bearing No. 16066362 from the opposite party no.2 on 13.5.2013 and deposited the premium amount of Rs.19981/- with op no.2. The father of the complainant had to deposit half yearly installments up to 13.11.2025 as per the policy and the policy was to mature on 13.5.2026. The complainant was made nominee by his father in the said policy and the client ID Number of the policy is 60961528 which was commenced from 21.5.2013. It is further averred that father of complainant died on 12.6.2013 in Verma Hospital, Bhuna and opposite party no.2 was informed in this regard by the complainant. The complainant submitted his claim with the opposite party no.2 and completed all the formalities in this regard and op no.2 assured him to pay the claim amount within a short period. The complainant made several visits to the office of op no.2 at Sirsa and every time op no.2 stated that claim has not been passed by Head Office. However, the claim amount has not been released in favour of complainant by op no.1 on the ground that complainant is not son of Ram Partap @ Partap Singh and has issued a letter in this regard to the complainant on 28.3.2014 which is wrong and illegal. The complainant is nominee in the said policy and is real son of Ram Partap @ Partap Singh and is legally entitled to receive the claim amount of the policy. The complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties and they have caused deficiency in service, as such he is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5000/- besides claim amount from the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the case by filing written statement. It has been submitted that complainant submitted death claim whereby the complainant represented to the ops that the life assured is his father and the life assured passed away on 12.6.2013. The answering ops after receipt of death claim had processed the case for conducting necessary investigation being an early claim i.e. within a month from the date of commencement of policy and during the course of investigation, it has been revealed to the company that the death date communicated by the complainant in respect of the life assured is forged and the life assured much prior to the commencement of policy had passed away. It has been revealed that the life assured had passed away on 17.5.2013 and complainant with a view to put his claim on the sum assured had got prepared the forged death certificate by showing the death of life assured on 12.6.2013. Apart from the same, it has also been established that complainant is having no relationship with the life assured and the life assured had also concealed material fact qua his financial capacity as during investigation, it has also been amply proved that the life assured was a member of BPL category but the life assured with a view to take unlawful gain from the ops had procured the policy by concealing the true and material facts. Therefore, the ops have repudiated the claim of the complainant.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, affidavit of Smt. Murti Devi widow of Ram Partap Ex.PW2/A, affidavit of Kesar Singh, Member Panchayat as Ex.PW3/A, insurance policy Ex.P1, copy of death claim Ex.P2, copy of letter dated 28.3.2014 Ex.P3, copy of voter card of Partap as Ex.P4, copy of ration card Ex.P5, copy of voter card of Murti Devi Ex.P6, certificate of Sarpanch Ex.P7, copy of voter card of complainant as Ex.P8, copy of pass book of bank of complainant as Ex.P9, copy of Aadhar card of complainant as Ex.P10, copy of his driving licence as Ex.P11, death certificate of Partap Ex.P12 and copy of middle standard examination certificate of complainant as Ex.P13. On the other hand, the opposite parties have placed on file affidavit of Sh. Amit Khanna, Zonal Legal Manager as Ex.RW1/A, copy of insurance policy Ex.R1 and copy of investigation report Ex.R2.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. There is no dispute that the opposite parties have issued a policy to Partap Singh son of Duni Ram, resident of village Sanchla, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad and proposal in this regard was accepted on 13.5.2013 after taking premium amount of Rs.19981/- whereas policy commenced from 21.5.2013. The sum assured in the policy is Rs,4,45,000/-. In the said policy, Jai Kishan was made nominee for said Partap Singh. The case of the complainant Jai Kishan is that death of his father Partap Singh took place on 12.6.2013 in Verma Hospital Bhuna but the opposite parties have not given the claim amount i.e. sum assured to him on wrong and false grounds. In this regard, complainant has placed on file letter dated 28.3.2014 of the opposite parties written to Jai Kishan as Ex.P3 wherein it is mentioned that they have come to know through their discret investigation that the said claimant Mr. Jai Kishan is not related to Mr. Partap Singh’s family in any manner, hence they cannot release the death claim amount in his favour. The opposite parties have also taken a plea in the written statement that life assured Partap Singh had already passed away on 17.5.2013 before commencement of the policy in question and his death certificate showing his death on 12.6.2013 is forged document. However, we are not convinced with the pleas of the opposite parties and we are of the view that they are taking just flimsy grounds for not paying the genuine claim of the complainant. No doubt, in some documents i.e. voter card of complainant Jai Kishan Ex.P8, bank pass book Ex.P9, driving licence Ex.P11 and in middle standard examination certificate, copy of which has been placed on file as Ex.P13. name of father of Jai Kishan is mentioned as Ram Partap but in his aadhar card Ex.P10 and ration card Ex.P5, name of his father is mentioned as Partap. The stand of the complainant is that his father Partap Singh was also known as Ram Partap and in this regard he has placed on file his affidavit besides affidavit of his mother Smt. Murti Devi as Ex.PW2/A. Sh. Kesar Singh, Member Panchayat in his affidavit Ex.PW3/A has also testified that Ram Partap who was his neighbour was also known by the names Partap Singh @ Partap. There is also a certificate of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Dhani Sanchla Ex.P7 on file in which it has been certified that Partap @ Partap Singh @ Ram Partap son of Duni Ram was resident of Dhani Sanchla, Distt. Fatehabad and he was personally known to him for the last 15/20 years. In the ration card which was issued on 8.1.2005, copy of which has been placed on file as Ex.P5 Jai Kishan is shown as son of Partap. So, it has been duly proved on record that Partap life assured was also known with the name of Ram Partap @ Partap Singh and complainant Jai Kishan is his son and the opposite parties have taken a vague plea in this regard.
6. The opposite parties have also taken almost baseless plea in the written statement that life assured Partap actually expired on 17.5.2013 i.e. before commencement of the policy and not on 12.6.2013. In order to justify their stand in this regard, the opposite parties have placed on file copy of investigation report Ex.R2 in which it is mentioned that as per submitted death certificate the date of death is 12th June 2013 but when our investigator met with several people of LA’s area it is found that actual date of death is 17th May 2013. It is further mentioned that their investigation met with nominee Mr. Jai Kishan and asked about date of death of LA. As per statement of nominee LA had died on 17.5.2013. Anganwadi worker had also given the statement and described the date of death as 17.5.2013. The opposite parties have also appended copies of statements of Veena, Jai Kishan and copy of certificate of Satpal, Vice Chairman, Panchayat Samiti, Bhuna in this regard alongwith investigation report. But the tone and tenor of these documents makes it clear that the Investigator had obtained their signatures on some blank papers and then same have been converted into their alleged statements and the said statements have been falsified by the complainant. The complainant has placed on file an extract of Birth and Death Register of Dhani Sanchla in which at Sr. No.5, date of death of Ram Partap son of Duni Ram is mentioned as 12.6.2013 and Smt. Veena Aanganwari worker has certified that the said copy has been taken from her register and the said fact is also verified by Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Dhani Sampla on the said copy. The complainant has also placed on file death certificate of his father Partap in which date of his death is mentioned as 12.6.2013. So it has been duly established on record that life assured died on 12.6.2013 and not on 17.5.2013 as alleged by ops and the version of the opposite parties in this regard stands falsified.
7. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we are of the view that complainant Jai Kishan is entitled to the sum assured of Rs.4,45,000/- as mentioned in the policy for the death of his father Partap @ Ram Partap and the opposite parties by not paying the said amount to the complainant on the above said false concoctions have caused mental harassment as well as deficiency in service to the complainant. Hence, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay the sum assured of Rs.4,45,000/- to the complainant alongwith @9% per annum from the date of filing of claim by the complainant i.e. from 28.10.2013 till actual payment. We also direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. This order should be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:14.9.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member
