This is a case under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant Lilly Parveen against the O.P H.D.F.C Standard Life Insurance Company Limited and others.
The case of the complainant in brief, inter alia, is that the complainant is an ‘Anganari’ worker in the village living with her two minor children going to school with her mother-in-law. Husband of the complainant Abdul Kader during his life-time purchased Life Insurance Policy from O.P H.D.F.C Standard Life Insurance Company Limited who was Referral Agent of O.P.
Policy bears no. 17291728/Plan HDFC SL PRO GROWTH SUPER II, issued on 22.12.2014 and the maturity date of the said Policy is on 22.12.2024 with sum assured of Rs. 3 lakhs. Annual premium against that Policy was Rs.30,000/- payable to the O.P. H.D.F.C Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. Policy-holder Abdul Kader died on 19.06.2015 at the age of 48 years, at Shanti Nursing Home, Siliguri. After death of Abdul Kader wife of the policy-holder Lilly Parveen being the complainant is nominee of the said Policy. Thereafter she intimated about the death of the Policy-holder to the O.P H.D.F.C Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. The complainant was advised to apply for insurance claim as per Policy Deed dated 22.12.14 with necessary papers and as such the complainant being nominee complied with the term. The O.P branch of H.D.F.C Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. of Falakata Road, Dhupguri assured the complainant that all the papers including the application/claim form submitted by the complainant would be sent to O.P no.1 H.D.F.C Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. Thereafter the complainant received a letter from O.P H.D.F.C Standard Life Insurance Company Limited on 28.7.2015 in connection with Death Claim under Policy No. 17291728/ Plan HDFC SL PRO GROWTH SUPER II of Late Abdul Kader acknowledging that they are in receipt of the communication of the complainant and for submitting the claim related documents properly from the complainant. Also they asked for additional documents in connection with death claim. The officers of O.P. H.D.F.C Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. came to the house of the complainant and collected documents from the complainant and her mother-in-law and also phone numbers of the complainant. Surprisingly, the officials of the O.P demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/- to make the process faster.
The complainant lodged written complaint against the officials of O.P H.D.F.C Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. at his office at Cooch Behar via Dhupguri branch. She was assured that necessary steps would be taken by the O.P, H.D.F.C Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. The complainant went to Cooch Behar and submitted documents against the letter dated 28.7.2015 sent by the O.P. H.D.F.C Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. with reference to “Death Claim Further Requirement” Discharge Certificate of Abdul Kader issued by Shanti Nursing Home declaring him as dead was filed. Also Discharge certificate dated 6.6.2015 was submitted. The Policy-holder died. On 8.1.2016 the complainant received letter from the O.P H.D.F.C Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. informing that the claim has been repudiated on the ground that income of life assured was less than what has been disclosed in the application submitted by the Policy holder Abdul Kader, since deceased. As a general rule, every Policy before it finally get registered and the policy certificate is issued in favour of the Policy holder there must be a proposal by the policy holder in the acceptance of the same by the insurance company on proper verification and satisfaction of the documents or information being directed have been submitted by the Policy-holder to the insurance company at the time of making of the proposal or application and the policy Deed bears evidence of a contract always between the insurance company and the policy-holder. Policy Deed bears evidence of contract by and between insurance company and the Policy-holder. At the time of making proposal Policy Deed/certificate bears evidence of contract between the insurance company and the Policy-holder. It has been further submitted that letter of repudiation dated 8.8.2016 on the plea of providing incomplete, improper data or personal details by the Policy-holder to the insurance company is thus inconsistent, unworthy and unwarranted.
The O.P, Branch Manager of H.D.F.C Bank Ltd. Falakata Road is acting as a Referral Agent of O.P no.1 HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd running its business under the umbrella of Referral Agency. Copy of communication made to the O.P was misplaced, but existence of receipt from courier service Blue Dart dt. 4.2.2016 can be produced as POD against correspondence so made. The Complainant submits that the O.P has deliberately and willfully after receiving first installment from Abdul Kader made such Policy on being satisfied and as such there is a concluded contract by and between HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co.Ltd. and Abdul Kader, since deceased. Therefore, the O.P cannot take plea about the lesser income of Abdul Kader that what has been disclosed to the O.P-company. After death of Abdul Kader his wife Lilly Parveen cannot prove income of her husband. She is also an Anganari worker. Therefore, he has been deprived from her legitimate claim of the sum assured of Rs.3 lakhs.
In Annexure to the complaint it has been stated by the O.P that unit identification number of Policy-holder Abdul Kader was 10IL066 V02. It has been stated by the O.P that the Policy is an evidence of contract between H.D.F.C Standard Life Insurance Co.Ltd. and the Policy-holder Abdul Kader. The Policy is based on the proposal made by the then Policyd-holder and submitted to the Company along with document Declaration Statement applicable medical information and documents and other information received by the company from the Poliicy-holder. The Written Policy will be governed by the law enforced in India. So, the O.P-company itself admits that sum assured of Rs.3 lakhs will be given to the Policy-holder in case of his death. When the Company admitted that it has a contract, then the Company cannot skip from liability of payment to his nominee after death of Abdul Kader on 23.6.2015.
The Complainant Lilly Parveen was informed that yearly income of Abdul Kader was shown as Rs.2,50,000/- per year. But they have made investigation that income of Abdul Kader was made at Rs.2,50,000/- per year. So, they have refused to make payment. But the complainant claimed that the O.P-company cannot take plea that Abdul Kader had less than gross yearly income of Rs.2,50,000/-. Subsequent investigation is actually incorrect. The complainant Abdul Kader has correctly stated his income was Rs.2,50,000/- per year, otherwise the O.P H.D.F.C Insurance Company Ltd. would not have made an agreement with Abdul Kader, since deceased and would not exceed Rs.30,000/- yearly premium from Abdul Kader. Therefore, it is a concluded contract which has been admitted by the O.P H.D.F.C Insurance Company Ltd and it cannot retract therefrom.
The Complainant has prayed for direction upon the O.P to pay insured sum of Rs. 3 Lakhs with interest @ 9% per annum on the insurance amount from the date of repudiation dated 18.1.2016 till the date if realization. Also she has prayed for compensation amounting to Rs. 1(one) lakh against the O.Ps for harassment, sufferingmental agony. More-so, he has prayed for Rs.75,000/- towards unfair trade practice by the O.P. Further, he has prayed for litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.
Relying the material allegations made in the complaint the O.Ps have filed joint statement stating, inter alia, that after acceptance of the proposal the Policy documents were discharged to the customer wherein terms and conditions of the Policy have been clearly stated. Mode, method and payment of premium were clearly mentioned in the Policy documents. In the instant Policy case no. 17291728 Policy certificate was issued to the husband of the complainant Abdul Kader on the basis of duly signed proposal form for purchase of “HDFC SL PRO GROWTH SUPER II” having annual premium of Rsd.30,000/- for 10 years and the commencing date of Policy was from 22.12.2014. On the basis of the Proposal form and documents submitted by the complainant the opposite party Insurance Company has accepted the proposal and issued insurance policy certificate to Abdul Kader. The complainant also filed the document which clearly stated working policy, terms and type of Policy. Insurance is not subject-matter of the solicitation. The agent solicits insurance policy from proposed customer after briefing terms and conditions of Insurance Policy. Only after being convinced and satisfied with the terms of Policy explained through agent and after going through literature life assured filled and signed duly signed proposal form for issuance of one HDFC SL PRO GROWTH SUPER II. In the proposal form deceased L.A had declared that she has read and understood the terms and conditions of insurance policy obtained by her by sending the same. On the basis of Proposal form and documents submitted by the deceased the opposite party-O.P has accepted the proposal and issued to the complainant one HDFC SL PRO GROWTH SUPER II for a Policy term and premium paying term for whole life and annual premium got to Rs. 30,000/-. Post-acceptance of proposal, the Policy was issued based on details printed in the proposal form which is signed by deceased Policy-holder and the documents submitted thereto. Policy document of the said Policy was dispatched to DLA and the same was duly received on 7.11.15 at the corresponding address. Policy was issued based on details provided in the proposal form signed by the Policy-holder and the documents submitted thereto. Policy document for the said Policy was dispatched to the deceased L.A and the same was duly received at the correspondence address. Moreover, the delivery of Policy document has not been disputed by the complainant in his complaint. Along with Policy documents copies of all documents submitted at the time of proposal were sent to DLA. The Policy certificate was issued based on details provided in the proposal form and addendum to electronic proposal form which was signed by the deceased policy-holder and the documents submitted thereto. The Policy document for the said policy was dispatched to the deceased and the same was duly received at the correspondence address. Delivery of Policy documents has not been disputed by the complainant. Delivery of Policy document has not been disputed by the complainant anywhere in the complaint. So, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the complaint. It requires deposition of evidence and trials and can be properly done at the Civil Court. Hence, the proper forum to agitate the alleged grievance is before Civil Court and proceedings under this forum envisages a summary procedure of complaints of simple nature and the complicated questions of law and facts can be decided only by a Civil Court. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Policy was purchased by insured Abdul Kader being husband of the complainant with full satisfaction after going through the terms and conditions of the Policy. The complainant submitted death claim intimation along with other documents on 23.7.2015 and acknowledgement letter dated 28.7.2015 was sent from the end of O.P requesting the complainant to submit additional documents on 14.10.2015 for further processing of the death claim request. Thereafter the complainant submitted further required documents on 14.10.2015. The opposite party conducted an investigation after receiving Death Claim Intimation wherefrom he found that DLA was vegetable seller and his financial condition was very poor. His Annual Income is below Rs.50,000/-. B.P.L Ration Card-holder Abdul Kader was 46 years old. His wife is Lilly Parveen and she is dependent. The complainant has given Written Statement to the Investigator stating her husband’s annual income was Rs.36,000/- which is just equal to premium amount to be paid annually in respect of said Policy and less than what was disclosed in the proposal form at the time of purchasing the Policy. Non-disclosure being established to have been material and having done deliberately, the said death claim was rejected by the O.P due to non-disclosure. Letter dated 8.1.2016 was sent to the complainant stating specifically to settle the claim against the given Policy. The claim of the complainant was rejected due to suppression of fact and non-disclosure of fact at the time of purchasing insurance policy. Application was made with mala fide intention to get sympathy of the Court by showing Death Claim in respect of DLA. So, the claim of the complainant is unjust, unfair and contrary to law and untenable.
In the claim Policy the income of Abdul Kader is shown at Rs.2,50,000/- per year. He was doing business. So, the O.P has accepted Rs. 30,000/- as yearly premium. They have accepted bank statement, PAN Card of Abdul Kader. Statement of Abdul Kader was supported by Shri Biplab Sarkar who put signature on the HDFC SL PRO GROWTH SUPER II documents. He has paid the Annual premium of Rs.30,000/- on 17.12.2014 at HDFC Bank Limited at Jalpaiguri Branch. Abdul Kader has PAN Card. In other words, he has more than taxable income for which he has PAN Account No. BJBPK 7247J. Bank
Statement shows that Abdul Kader has credit of Rs.29,865/- on 16.12.2014. Besides that, he has given Rs.30,000/- towards Life Insurance Policy in favour of HDFC Life. He has nominated Lilly Parveen in case of his death. First premium was given by Abdul Kader on 22.12.2014 in relation to Policy No. 17291728. Statement of Death Claim in the prescribed form has been given by wife Lilly Parveen. Also she has Voter’s Identity Card bearing no. JLG3365665. Digital Ration Card bears M.R No.511095 in favour of Lilly Parveen. Death Certificate of Abdul Kader on 19.6.2015 was issued by Dr. Ujjal Sarma. Also Death Certificate was issued by the Government of West Bengal on 24.6.2015.
Santi Sasthalay & Anusandhan Kendra Private Ltd, Siliguri has issued Death certificate of Abdul Kader stating therein that he died on 19.6.2015. Therefore, he has prayed for rejection of the claim.
On the pleadings of the parties the following points for consideration are framed :-
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION :-
- Has the District Consumer Forum any jurisdiction to entertain this case filed by the complainant claiming insurance policy of Rs. 3 lakhs standing in the name of the deceased Abdul Kader ?
- Whether Abdul Kader, since deceased, having PAN No.BJBPK 7247J can be said to be earning less than what has been disclosed ?
- Whether the O.P Insurance Company can deny insured policy of Rs.3 lakhs from Abdul Kader after receiving yearly premium of Rs.30,000/- from Abdul Kader and after issuance of Insurance Policy in his favour ?
- Whether Abdul Kader and the O.P HDFC Life Insurance after execution of Life Insurance Policy can repudiate the claim of the claimant Lilly Parveen being wife of Abdul Kader, since deceased ?
- Whether concluded contract by and between deceased Abdul Kader and the O.P HDFC Life Insurance can be re-opened after acceptance of the premium of Rs.30000/- from Abdul Kader ?
- When Abdul Kader having Permanent Account Number of Income Tax Department can be said to be earning less than what has been disclosed before the O.P HDFC Life Insurance Company ?
- Whether the Investigator has any jurisdiction to re-investigate about income of Abdul Kader after death nor repudiated the claim of the insured amount of Rs.3 lakhs though received yearly premium of Rs.30,000/- from Abdul Kader during his life-time ?
- Has the O.P HDFC life insurance any right to deny life insurance claim amount of Rs.3 lakhs to the claimant Lilly Parveen being widow after death of her husband Abdul Kader ?
- To what other relief or reliefs the claimant is entitled to both in law and in equity ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :-
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience of brevity and for effective adjudication.
Deceased Abdul Kader during his life-time purchased Life Insurance Policy from O.P/Branch Manager, H.D.F.C Bank Limited, Falakata Road, Dhupguri Branch, Jalpaiguri. It reveals from the record that Abdul Kader has shown his income of Rs.2.1/2 lakh per year. In other words his daily income stands at Rs.685/-. Investigation report shows that the deceased Abdul Kader was of middle class family having agricultural land and business. Besides that, he takes some land on contract basis for the purpose of production. He died on 19.06.2015. He had PAN No. BJAPK7247J of the Income Tax Department. He made Policy of Rs.3 lakhs. Therefore, HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited after being satisfied with all the documents supplied to them by Abdul Kader have issued Policy out of which the first premium of Rs.30,000/- was paid by Abdul Kader. Therefore, he is a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d). His wife Lilly Parveen is an illiterate lady, save and except she can put signature written by some other person. All the documents relied upon by the insurance company were not written by Lilly Parveen. But it has been contended by Lilly Parveen that they are being hatched up conspiracy against the complainant being wife of Abdul Kader to deprive from getting legitimate insured amount of Rs.3 lakhs. Also they have specific allegation against the concerned unscrupulous officials of HDFC Life Insurance agent who came to her house. Therefore, there is deficiency in service u/s. 2(vi)(g) for denying in payment of Rs.3 lakhs to the complainant. The case is thus maintainable. This Consumer Forum holds that he has agricultural land and land taken on contract for giving portion of profit to the land-holder as well as business for which his income was the minimum ceiling limit of Rs.2.1/2 lakhs per year. Consequently he made PAN Card.
In Manjinder Kaur –Vs- Life Insurance Corporation of India, Volume-I(2014) CPJ 3 (National Commission) it has been held that in case of suppression of material facts, which were within knowledge of life assured, in fraudulent manner resulted into vitiating contract of insurance.
Said decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is not applicable in the present case in view of the fact that Abdul Kader had an average income of more than Rs.700/- per day, in other words Rs.2,50,000/- per year. It is fact that he had landed property, own dwelling house and land taken from others on contract basis for growing crops there at a portion. Besides that, he has business. It can safely be concluded that he maintained his livelihood with his wife, two school-going children and maintains decent life having income-tax PAN Card. It is not practical for his wife Lilly Parveen, who is a half literate person to say about the monthly income of her husband. Letter relied upon by insurance company was not being written by Lilly Parveen save and except the signature. Therefore, said letter has been denied by the complainant. The writer of the letter did not come forward to say that he has written that letter under instruction of the complainant Lilly Parveen. Rather she has specific allegation against the unscrupulous agent of Life Insurance Corporation who demanded bribe from her for passing order in his favour. As and when Life Insurance Policy has been issued after proper investigation and verification of document such plea of lesser income than what has been disclosed by Abdul Kader as taken by the O.P insurance company is not tenable in law.
In Life Insurance Corporation of India-Vs-Smt. Hira Devi it has been held by the National Consumer Redressal Commission that the complainant was informed that husband of the complainant had obtained insurance policy of Rs.2,10,000/- on 1.10.2004, but her claim cannot be accepted as life assured in the proposal form. She stated her age to be 45 years. Perhaps as per statement his age was 53 years. In the instant case there is no dispute about the age. But only dispute centers about income.
In Life Insurance Corporation of India-Vs-Lakhvir Singh in first Appeal No. 1696/2009 the insured has deliberately given wrong age to pay lesser premium than what he was to pay in case he had disclosed his correct age.
In the instant case no wrong date of birth was given to conceal the material fact by Abdul Kader.
In Life Insurance Corporation of India –Vs- Hira Devi, decided in Revision Petition No. 4048 of 2009 the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that it is settled proposition of law that the insurance is a contract based upon utmost good faith. It requires no emphasis that when any information on a specific aspect was asked for in a proposal form an assured is under solemn obligation to make true and full disclosure of the information. It is expected of the contracting parties on either sides to give truthful account of details in the contract.
In this context it is to be mentioned that Abdul Kader had his income more than Rs.700/- per day, in other words Rs.2,50,000/- per annum, otherwise he could not maintain his family including two school going children. In addition to that, expenses will be incurred towards tiffin fee, school dress, food and other cost of living. It can be taken into judicial notice that in all there were four members. Moreover, the complainant is a widow/hapless lady since after the sudden death of her husband Abdul Kader. Her husband has agricultural property and also used to earn from the property taken from others to grow up crops on yearly basis. More-so, he had business. As and when subsequent investigation was being done by the investigator, they verified income of Abdul Kader from his business, agricultural land, dwelling house and land taken from others on contract basis which is practically not possible to ascertain PAN Card after issuance of Life Insurance Policy was in favour of Abdul Kader. Taking of insurance premium, the life insurance policy is debarred under rule of estoppels, concluded contract cannot be allowed to be reopened, altered and/or repudiated of the insurance policy to mislead family-holder after demise of the insured person. They want to repudiate the claim after taking premium from Abdul Kader during his life-time. This is a mala fide act and highhandedness on the part of insurance company. If the amount is not being given, then the entire family will be jeopardized and they will suffer financial crisis. The insurance company should have come with transparent idea so that such type of middle-class family does not suffer for their illegal activities. In one matter the double investigation is not permissible in relation to income after demise of insured . One investigation has been done during the life-time of Abdul Kader, but when his wife demanded money then another investigation was made to deprive the bereaved family from their legitimate demand. Doctrine of approbate and reprobate debars Life Insurance Company to deny payment of insurance to the claimant. New plea is not sustainable in law. Due to their malafide act they have been forced to file the instant consumer case against the Life Insurance Corporation of India. So, they shall pay litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.
The complainant neither suppressed any material fact, nor denied about income of her husband Abdul Kader during his life-time. Average income of Rs.2,50,000/- per year has been disclosed when Policy was being taken by Abdul Kader. Therefore, this Court finds that income as disclosed by the complainant is factually correct in the facts and circumstances of the case, otherwise he would not have his own dwelling house, landed property, business and land taken from other owners for growing up crops on contract basis. Presently if market price of four persons per day including food, lodging and other incidental costs are added, then it crosses Rs.700/- per day.In other words Rs.2,50,000/- per year. No unjustified amount was stated by Abdul Kader, but PAN Card also speaks that he had income. There is no need to have PAN Card if his income was Rs. 36,000/- per year, in other words Rs.100/- per day, as demanded by the Life Insurance Corporation of India on the basis of the letter written by unknown person to which the complainant alleged to have signed, but that letter has not been proved. More-so, there is no supporting cogent and reliable document from end of Life Insurance Company.
As regards maintainability of the case the O.P has argued that the complainant should have sought redress before the Civil Court, but not before the Consumer Court. To this contention the complainant has replied that section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act clarified that the Consumer Protection Act is not in derogation of the Civil Procedure Code, but it is in addition to any other Act. Therefore, the complainant is free to choose either option. Upon hearing of the Ld. Counsels for the respective parties this Court is of the view that the complainant has chosen the Consumer Forum to get redress of his grievances. Therefore, under section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act the instant case is maintainable in view of decision reported in J.J. Merchant –Vs – Srinath Chaturbedi, 2002(6) SCC 635.
As and when the O.P Insurer has made an agreement after verification of document on having agricultural property, dwelling house, business and other income from the agricultural land to yield higher crops on contract basis, they have issued Life Insurance Policy and accepted 1st yearly premium of Rs.30,000/-. Therefore, the fact admitted by the O.P insurer need not be proved u/s.58 of the Transfer of Property Act. Moreover, the concluded contract shall prevail over the subsequent investigation made by the O.P Insurer repudiating claim of the claimant in respect of income of abdul Kader, since deceased, u/sl. 92 of the Evidence Act. Income of Abdul Kader during his life-time is bench mark. But claim of fall of income after death is not criteria. That investigator cannot hold subsequent investigation over income of Abdul Kader after his death. If for the sake of argument assuming that subsequent investigation has been made with mala fide plea and has managed to get signature from rustic lady having no knowledge about the worldly affairs, then it is treated as unfair trade practice on the part of O.P insurer. Lilly Parvin does not know how to write a letter. But she can simply put signature on a letter written by the investigator, as claimed by the complainant. There is deficiency of service from the end of the O.P insurer and such practice of investigation by the O.P insured after concluded contract by and between Abdul Kader and O.P Insured is highly condemnable and disbelievable. The O.P insurer could not produce any Land Record in relation to owner of Abdul Kader and his dwelling house.
When the O.P Insurance Company has been satisfied with the documents provided by Abdul Kader, they made verification and was satisfied about having land. Also they have been satisfied that he had business. More-so, he takes agricultural land for high yielding crops, portion of income therefrom was being given to the owner. When he has paid yearly premium of Rs.30,000/- to the insurance company, the insurance company accepted the same after proper verification and insured life insurance policy, then it is deemed that contract is concluded by and between the insurer and insured on account of unfortunate death of Abdul Kader, his wife Lilly Parveen being hapless lady is entitled to get the entire insured amount of Rs.3 lakhs from the O.P insurance company to maintain her family. The Life Insurance Company cannot repudiate the claim of the claimant. They cannot further investigate after death of Abdul Kader about his income to repudiate the claim. The concluded contract cannot be opened, varied, altered to deprive the legitimate claim of the claimant. The investigator has no jurisdiction to re-investigate about income of Abdul Kader after his death and his wife cannot say as to how much her husband earns. Her husband in addition to payment of life insurance premium used to maintain her two minor school going children. Therefore, such plea cannot be taken by the Life Insurance Company. Lilly Parveen is an illiterate person. Only she can put signature when the letter is being written by someone. That writer of the letter has not put signature and endorses that the letter is being written under instruction of Lilly Parveen and read over the same. So, the letter relied upon by the Life Insurance Company cannot be said to be the document of Lilly Parveen.
In Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited-Vs-Singa Ram Patel, Volume-III (2019), CPJ 49(N.C) it has been held explaining section 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act in respect of insurance(Life & Death Claim) that misrepresentation in respect to income disclosure was alleged. Claim was repudiated, deficiency in service. DLA was filing income-tax returns which corporate information given in proposal form. Insurance Company has not claimed that income tax returns submitted by the complainant are vague or do not pertain to DLA. DLA might be doing business of Kirana shop and was also filing income tax return for her husband. But simultaneously husband also obtained a BPL card where DLA was mentioned as BPL family. Insurance is a commercial contract having all qualities of normal contract and nothing has been found by FORA which vitiates this contract. Misrepresentation has not been proved though it is a fact that the complainant has cheated Government machinery by obtaining BPL Card for which separate action can be initiated against the complainant repudiation is not justified.
Referring the above decision it appears to this Forum that BPL Card of the husband of the complainant and/or the complainant, as alleged is separate matter for which Government to take action against the complainant, because deceased Abdul Kader was paying income tax on annual income of Rs.2,50,000/- per year. But a subsequent investigation made by the Insurance Company Ltd. shows income of the complainant of deceased Abdul Kader was at Rs. 36,000/- having no basis at all and there is no cogent document. It is mere surmise and conjecture. At the time of insurance policy the claim of Abdul Kader, since deceased, was accepted. Therefore, insured amount of Rs. 3 lakhs cannot be repudiated by by Life Insurance Corporation of India violating the contract which has binding effect upon both the parties.
The O.P is hereby directed to pay insurance amount of Rs.3 Lakhs to the claimant within one month from the date of passing the order along with interest @9% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. 18.01.2016. Besides that, it shall pay Rs.50,000/- towards harassment, mental pain, agony and litigation cost. Further, the O.P is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the District Consumer Legal Aid Account, DCDRF, Jalpaiguri.
All the points are decided in favour of the complainant.
Accordingly, it is
O R D E R E D :-
That the Consumer Case No.09 of 2017 be and the same is allowed on contest. The O.Ps HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Jalpaiguri Town Branch, represented by 1) The Branch Manager, HDFC, 2) The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Limited, Falakata Road, P.O. Dhupguri, Jalpaiguri and 3) HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd, having its office at 11th Floor, Lodha Excelus, Apollo Mills Compound, N.M. Joshi Road, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400 011 are hereby directed to pay insurance amount of Rs.3 Lakhs to the Complainant/claimant Lilly Parveen within one month from the date of passing the order along with interest @9% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. 18.01.2016. Besides that they shall pay to the claimant Rs.50,000/- towards harassment, mental pain, agony and litigation cost. Moreover, all the O.Ps are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the District Consumer Legal Aid Account, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalpaiguri.
There will be no order against the O.P. No.4 Blue Dart Courier.
