PER:
Charanjit Singh, President
1 The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 12 and 13 against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant is widow of Harbhajan Singh who was nominee of his son namely Jobanjit Singh’s life insurance policy having policy No. 17822125 of the opposite party No.1. The husband of the complainant namely Harbhajan Singh mentioned above died on 9.12.2015 i.e. much prior to the death of complainant’s son namely Jobanjit Singh the original policy holder. Jobanjit Singh son of complainant got himself insured with a life insurance policy of the opposite party No. 1 having policy No. 17822125-HDFC SL Pro growth super-2 and as per the terms and conditions of this policy, the policy holder has to pay Rs. 49,000/- and in return the policy holder was to get Rs. 4,90,000/- as sum assured in case of death and in total the policy holder is to pay premium of the above mentioned amount for 15 years continuously and this amount was to be debited from the policy holder saving bank account and Jobanjit Singh deceased fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the above said policy and paid Rs. 49,000/- as premium per year without any default from the commencement of the policy from 19.8.2015 and the premium amount was annually debited from his saving bank account which he was operating HDFC Bank branch Jandiala Road Tarn Taran having account No. 50100112446256. The original policy holder namely Jobanjit Singh unfortunately died on 11.9.2018 at Sukhbir Hospital Amritsar and as mentioned above his father namely Harbhajan Singh who was appointed as nominee in the above mentioned policy had already died on 9.12.2015 and as such, the nominee in this matter had already died and as such, the complainant is the first class legal heir of deceased Jobanjit Singh and as such, he is very much eligible to receive the claim of the insurance policy in question amounting to Rs. 4,90,000/- so the complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 and immediately informed regarding the death of Jobanjjit Singh and also supplied the requisite documents to the opposite parties through their representatives having their local office at the HDFC Bank Branch Jandiala Road Tarn Taran and the complainant lodged the claim with the opposite parties as per the procedure laid down by it. The opposite parties assured the complainant after receiving the documents from her that the claim amount of Rs. 4,90,000/- will be released to her in a fortnight so she waited for this time but inspite of waiting nothing was released to her. The complainant again approached the opposite parties in person and requested it for release of the claim but again the opposite parties required time for the same. One of the premium was debited by the opposite parties from the account of the complainant even after the death of Jobanjit Singh inspite of knowing the fact of his death. The complainant has prayed that the following relieves in favour of complainant.
- The opposite party may kindly be directed to release the insurance claim/ reimbursement of Rs. 4,90,000/- to the complainant.
- It is also prayed that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses on account of mental and physical harassment caused to the complainant at the hands of opposite parties in the interest of justice, fir play and equity.
- Any other relief to which the complainant is entitled to that may also be granted in his favour under the law and equity.
Alongwith the complaint the complainant has placed on record her affidavit Ex. C-1, self attested copy of policy document Ex. C-2, Self attested copy of death certificate of Jobanjit Singh Ex. C-3, Self attested copy of death certificate of Harbhajan Singh Ex. C-4, Self attested copy of Jobanjit Singh Ex. C-5, Self attested copy of Adhar Card of complainant Ex. C-6.
2 Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite parties and opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written version by interalia pleadings that the complainant has no cause of action to file the preset complaint against the opposite parties on account of the fact that the complaint filed by the complainant is premature. The facts of the case are that as per records of the opposite parties, insurance policy was issued on the name of Jobanjit Singh and as per records of the opposite party Shri Harbhajan Singh (father of the insured) was appointed as nominee. Intimation about alleged death of the insured was given by the complainant in February, 2019 but no regular claim was lodged by the complainant as she was not the nominee. The complainant was advised time and again to procure succession certificate from competent court of law against concerned policy and thereafter she should file death claim by submitting required documents, but instead of procuring succession certificate she firstly sent a legal notice and thereafter file present complaint, therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone being without any cause of action and premature one with direction to the complainant that she should firstly procure succession certificate if there is no other legal heir and then submit regular death claim with the opposite party by submitting all the required documents to enable the opposite party to verify the documents and investigate the matter regarding genuineness of the claim and to accept/repudiate the claim keeping in view the said investigation. The complainant is estopped to file the instant complaint as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party as defined in Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 under the heading deficiency. There was no occasion of assuring the complainant for release of the claim particularly when the complainant herself has failed to submit the succession certificate coupled with documents required for lodging regular claim so as to enable the opposite party to investigate the matter and to accept/ repudiate the claim as per terms and conditions of the policy. Unless the claim is considered and investigated upon submission of required documents by the complainant, question of release of the claim amount does not arise. The opposite parties have denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.
3 We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and opposite parties and have carefully gone through the record placed on the file.
4 In the present case, there is no dispute that the deceased Harbhajan Singh was insured with the opposite parties vide insurance policy No. 17822125. According to complainant she has submitted death claim alongwith all documents to the opposite parties but the opposite parties have not given the genuine claim to the complainant. But on the other hands, the stand of the opposite parties is that no regular claim was lodged by the complainant as she was not the nominee. The complainant was advised time and again to procure succession certificate from competent court of law against concerned policy and thereafter she should file death claim by submitting required documents, but instead of procuring succession certificate she firstly sent a legal notice and thereafter file present complaint, therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone being without any cause of action and premature one with direction to the complainant that she should firstly procure succession certificate if there is no other legal heir and then submit regular death claim with the opposite party. However, at the time of arguments, Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that succession certificate cannot be submitted in this case because the same is a long expensive and tiresome route and in support of his version the Ld. counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on Shanti Devi Vs Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank decided on 24, July, 2006 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and para No. 4 and 5 of the said citation is as follows:-
4 However, a solution-cum-justice oriented approach is need of the hour. One should not forget that it requires time, energy and money to obtain a succession certificate. Parties should not be forced to take such a long expensive and tiresome rout, when the problem can be solved otherwise protecting interest of all for satisfaction of their equitable rights.
5. Accordingly, if other heirs of the deceased give consent on an affidavit on due identification and have no objection, then the Bank should release the amount in favour of the complainant along with other heirs or should allow the complainant petitioner to withdraw 50% amount from the Bank account after taking an indemnity bond from her to safeguard the interest of the Bank, as well as other legal heirs. This view is essential to give a human face to our banking system as well as consumer to develop consumer friendly approach of consumer Fora to help the helpless widows facing disputes in the family. The respondent Bank is supposed to show this human face.
In view of above citation, the complainant cannot be forced to obtain succession certificate, however, in place of succession certificate, the complainant should file affidavit with regard to legal heirs of Harbhajan Singh (deceased). The claim has not been decided so far and is still pending due to non providing of documents. In case Balu Waman Kadam vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. IV (2013) CPJ 16A (CN) (Mah.), the matter was similar, wherein the Insurance Company was asking the complainant to submit the documents again and again and the complainant was alleging that he had already submitted the requisite documents to the Insurance Company. In such circumstances, the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra disposed of the matter, by directing the Insurance Company to reconsider the claim of the complainant within one month on receipt of the required documents from the complainant.
5 While relying upon the above said authority, the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh passed the similar orders in case M/s Trends, through its Proprietor vs The Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr. Consumer Complaint No.245 of 2015 decided on 04.08.2017; and M/s Gurbir Rice Mills v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. Consumer Complaint No.404 of 2016, decided on 09.10.2017, directing the Insurance Company to reconsider the claim of the complainant after submission of requisite documents by the complainant to it.
6 In view of our above discussion as well as keeping in view the ratio of above said judgments, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met, if the Insurance Company be directed to decide the claim of the complainant, after the complainant submit all the requisite documents. However, the opposite parties have not demanded the specific documents from the complainant and have not pleaded the required documents in their written version
7 In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is disposed of with the direction to the complainant to submit the death claim alongwith documents to the opposite parties-Insurance Company for deciding the claim within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and on approaching the complainant for supplying the requisite documents, the opposite parties will issue proper receipt acknowledging the same. The opposite parties shall decide the claim of the complainants within a further period of two months therefrom and in case of failure on the part of the opposite parties the claim case of the complainant deemed to have been accepted. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Commission and due to COVID-19. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties as per rules. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Commission.
17.05.2023
(Charanjit Singh)
President
(Nidhi Verma) (V.P.S. Saini)
Member Member
