Haryana

Karnal

CC/629/2022

Kuldeep Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Pardeep Kamboj

21 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 629 of 2022

                                                          Date of instt.11.11.2022

                                                          Date of Decision 21.11.2022

 

Kuldeep Kaur wife of late Shri Gurbaj Singh, resident of village Darar, District Karnal. Aadhar card no.2101 3653 4242.

 

                                                                         …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     HDFC Life Insurance 11^th to 14^th floor, Apollo Mills CMP Lodha Excelus, NM Joshi Marg Mahalakshmi, Mumbai Maharastra-400011 through its Managing Director.

 

2.     HDFC Life Insurance SCO no.778-779, 1^st floor opposite Mahabir Dal Hospital, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                                    …..Opposite Parties.

 

      Complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

 

 Present: None for complainant.

                                        

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant’s husband namely Gurbaj Singh purchased a life Insurance Policy bearing no.24351615 HDFC Pro growth plus for a period commencing from 17.11.2021. Prior to issuance of the policy, the agent of the OPs got issued the medical of Gurbaj Singh now deceased and at that time no disease of any kind to him. Complainant has appointed a nominee in the said policy. After taking the policy, husband of complainant paid the premium regularly. On 15.06.2022, the husband of complainant died in a roadside accident. After the death of her husband, complainant being nominee lodged the claim with the OPs and completed all the formalities and submitted the relevant documents. OPs have taken all the original documents including the original policy from the complainant. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OPs several times and requested to settle the death claim of her husband but OPs have paid a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- on 13.07.2022 to the complainant as compensation amount whereas as per terms and conditions of the policy, OPs were to pay a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- to the complainant. Thereafter, complainant being widow approached the OPs so many times and requested to pay remaining amount of Rs.31,50,000/- to the complainant but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly refused to pay the said amount. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 12.09.222 to the OPs but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             Today the case was fixed for arguments on the point of admissibility of the complaint, but none has put into appearance on behalf of complainant. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 11.11.2022 and the same is fixed for today for consideration on the point of admissibility, but none has appeared on behalf of complainant.

3.             Record perused.

4.             As per version of the complainant, on 17.11.2021 her husband had purchased a life Insurance Policy from the OPs during his life time. Complainant has appointed a nominee in the said policy. On 15.06.2022, the husband of complainant died in a roadside accident. After the death of her husband, complainant being nominee lodged the claim with the OPs and OPs have paid a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- only on 13.07.2022 to the complainant whereas insured amount was of Rs.35,00,000/-.        

5.             To prove her version, complainant has placed on file copy of death certificate, copy of postmortem report, copy of FIR, copy of legal notice, postal receipt, registered AD, copy of bank passbook, copy of bank statement and copy of her Aadhar card but the case of the complainant is based upon the insurance policy. The sum assured was Rs.35,00,000/- not Rs.3,50,000/- as paid by the OPs. Without going through the insurance policy covernote and policy it cannot be ascertained that insured amount is Rs.35,00,000/-

 6.            In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. However, complainant is at liberty to file a fresh complaint on the same cause of action on placing the insurance policy or cover note, if so desired.  Party concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.

Announced
Dated: 21.11.2022

                                                                 President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

       

                (Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)      

                      Member                        Member