Petitioner - Suvra Pal,
daughter of late Sisir Kumar Shaw &
wife of Tapan Pal,
residing at premises no. 15, Fakir Mistri
Bagan Lane, West Dassnagar and
P.S. Dassnagar, District Howrah.
O.Ps. - HDFC Life,
having its branch office at
HDFC SL Garihat Branch, 1st floor,
26A, Hisdustan Park Garihat Shopping
Mall, Gariahat,
Kolkata 700029 and another.
Order No.6 Date : 11.07.2016.
This date was fixed for passing order on the non maintainability petition filed by the o.p. praying for dismissal of the present CC 114 of 2016 stating that the same is not maintainable because on the self same issue the petitioner filed complaint before the Ld. Insurance Ombudsman who decided the same by order dated 16.11.2015 and this petitioner accepted the award of the Ombudsman and the o.p. no. 1 complied with the said award of the Ombudsman by cancelling the policy and refunding the premium of the petitioner and thus now the policy being cancelled and the premium having been refunded there cannot be any cause of action or any dispute between the parties and there is no question of adjudication and so the instant case be dismissed as not maintainable.
On scrutiny of the petition filed by the petitioner, Suvra Pal, it is noticed that she filed this case praying for a direction on the o.ps., HDFC Bank, to pay Rs. 9,99,523/- to the petitioner because the father of the petitioner, Sisir Kumar Shaw, invested money in a policy of the o.p. no. 1 for good returns and paid the premiums but the father of the petitioner felt that there was smell of cheating and fraud in the act of the o.ps. and so he stopped payment of the policy informing o.p. no. 1 that the agent misguided the petitioner at the time of purchasing the policy. Later on the petitioner approached the o.p. no. 1 to process death claim on 29.12.2014 and he also approached the office of the Ombudsman wherein the o.p. no. 1 appeared and filed objection and the Ombudsman passed award in favour of the petitioner directing the o.p. no. 1 to cancel the policy and refund the entire premium to the nominee of the deceased i.e., this petitioner on 16.11.2015. But the petitioner sustained loss due to cheating on the part of the o.p. no. 2 who is agent of o.p. no. 1 and so she filed this case.
This Forum heard the ld. counsel of both sides on the non maintainability petition filed by the o.p., HDFC Life praying for dismissal of the CC no. 114 of 2016 and finds that on the same matter the petitioner approached the office of Ombudsman and the o.p. no. 1 contested the case before Ombudsman who passed an award in favour of the petitioner directing the o.p. no. 1 to cancel the policy and refund the entire premium of the nominee of the deceased and in spite of the award the petitioner filed this case with reasons best known to the petitioner. From the first premium receipt it is noticed that the father of the petitioner paid Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 25,000/-, Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 25,000/- and again Rs. 20,000/- on five payments and it is noticed from the documents and it is clear from the decision of the Ombudsman that the insured having died and this petitioner approaching the Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman directed the insurer to cancel the policy and refund the entire premium to the nominee of the deceased complainant within 15 days of receiving the copy of the award. The letter of the office of Insurance Ombudsman and the consent letter proved that the matter was settled earlier in the office of the Ombudsman and the award was passed on 16.10.2015 and in spite of that the petitioner filed this case on 17.3.2016 which is not only illegal but also misuse of the legal process.
Thus keeping in mind the submissions of the ld. counsel of both sides this Forum finds that filing this complaint case no. 114 of 2016 before this Forum after the matters having been settled and award being passed on 16.10.2015 by insurance Ombudsman this Forum cannot further interfere in the matter as the decision of the Insurance Ombudsman was final.
In view of above the non maintainability petition succeeds.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
Order,
That the non maintainability petition is being allowed on contest and the instant case no. 114 of 2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest.
