Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2021 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainants have filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that Ravi Kumar husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainants No.2 and 3 was posted as Home Guard in Punjab Police and during his service tenure, he had purchased a policy bearing No.19137655-HDFC SL PRO Growth Plus from Opposite Party No.1 through Opposite Party No.2 alongwith other employees of the police department covering the risk of Rs.5 lakhs on 28.03.2017. Further alleges that during the subsistence of the policy in question, said Ravi Kumar got admitted at Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana on 04.05.2017 on complaint of suffering of Typhoid where he remained admitted till 30.05.2017 and for the first time, it was detected that Ravi Kumar was suffering from blood cancer and unfortunately, he died on 07.07.2017. Thereafter, being the legal heirs of Ravi Kumar insured, the complainants lodged the claim with the Opposite Parties for the insurance amount, but the Opposite Parties repudiated the claim of the complainant on the false and frivolous grounds. Actually, during the course of purchasing the policy, said Ravi Kumar was not aware about such diseases and hence there is no question arises of concealment of pre existing disease. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed to pay the sum assured of Rs.5 lakhs as per the policy, besides Rs.50,000/- as costs of inconvenience and damages alongwith interest @ 10% per annum besides Rs.25.000/- as costs of litigation.
3. Opposite Party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. It is submitted that without going into the merits of the complaint, it is very respectfully submitted that though the claim of the complainant was not admissible and was liable to be repudiated on the ground that that the deceased life assured made a false statement in the proposal form and concealed his pre –existing diseases and habits of smoking which were material information but still the Opposite Party has paid the entire insurance amount to the complainant as under:-
a) Rs.49,876.77 paisa paid earlier after repudiation of the claim as fund value of the policy.
b) Rs.4,50,123.20 paisa transferred to the complainant saving bank account on 15.02.2018 vide payment No. 8773713 UTR No. 46180475580071 and hence, the present complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.
4. None has come present on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, hence Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against exparte.
5. In order to prove their case, the complainants have tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
6. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainants, Opposite Party No.1 also tendered into evidence the affidavit of Ex.OPA alongwith copy of document Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP5 and close the evidence.
7. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also perused the written submissions on behalf of the complainants and also gone through the documents placed on record.
8. Ld.counsel for the Complainants as well as Opposite Party No.1 has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in written reply and hence, we have perused the rival contention and facts of the parties. The main prayer of the complainants is that Opposite Parties may be directed to pay the sum assured of Rs.5 lakhs as per the policy, besides Rs.50,000/- as costs of inconvenience and damages alongwith interest @ 10% per annum besides Rs.25.000/- as costs of litigation. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainants on the ground that though the claim of the complainant was not admissible and was liable to be repudiated on the ground that that the deceased life assured made a false statement in the proposal form and concealed his pre –existing diseases and habits of smoking which were material information but still the Opposite Party has paid the entire insurance amount to the complainant i.e. Rs.49,876.77 paisa paid earlier after repudiation of the claim as fund value of the policy and Rs.4,50,123.20 paisa transferred to the complainant saving bank account on 15.02.2018 vide payment No. 8773713 UTR No. 46180475580071 and hence, the present complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. In their written submissions, the complainants have submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 has transferred a sum assured of Rs.5 lakhs in the account of complainant on February, 2018 (a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid on filing of the complaint and Rs.4.5 lakhs transferred in the account in the month of February, 2018), but has further contended that the complainants have to recover the costs of litigation, the interest and damages on account of inconvenience suffered by the complainants. But we are of the view that since the claim of the complainants have already settled immediately in the month of February 2018 as admitted by the complainants and the claim for compensation as well as litigation appears not genuine. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other.
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, since the claim of the complainants have already been settled, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and the complaint of the complainant stands dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
11. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible as it could decide the same
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
