DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 640
Instituted on: 01.12.2017
Decided on: 16.05.2018
1.Pardeep Kaur wd/o Nanna Singh son of Bhura Singh
2.Lekh Raj Singh S/o Nanna Singh
3.Jaspreet Singh son of Nanna Singh, minor son under the guardianship of his mother Pardeep Kaur all residents of Village Kumbarwal, Tehsil Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.
…Complainants
Versus
1. ING Life Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Dhuri, through its Branch Manager.
2. ING Life Insurance Company Ltd. Head Office 1st and 2nd Floor, SCO 166-167, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through its Divisional Manager.
3. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Branch Dhuri, through its Branch Manager.
4. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. SCO 153, 154, 155, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through its Divisional Manager.
..Opposite parties
For the complainant : Shri Mohinder Paul Ahuja, Adv.
For OP No.1 & 2 : Shri Sanjeev Goyal, Adv.
For OP No.3 & 4 : Shri Vinay Jindal, Adv.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Pardeep Kumar, Lekh Raj Singh and Jaspreet Singh sons of late Nanna Singh, complainants (referred to as complainant in short) have preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that Shri Nanna Singh son of Bhura Singh obtained a policy from the OP bearing number 02880100 on 13.3.2014 under which guaranteed death benefit was payable to the tune of Rs.4,70,580/-. Further case of the complainants is that during the subsistence of the insurance policy on 7.12.2015, said Nanna Singh was driving the car bearing registration number PB-19-D-6003 and when he reached near village Rajomajra towards Dhuri, all of a sudden a motorcycle came from Dhuri Side and the driver of the car tried to save the motorcycle and as such the car in question struck with a tree and the said Nanna Singh died due to accident, of which DDR number 18 dated 8.12.2015 was recorded at PS Dhuri. Thereafter the complainant visited the OP number 1 along with the relevant documents, but the OP number 1 did not provide the claim form to the complainants. The complainants on 21.4.2016 also served a legal notice upon the OPs through registered post, but of no avail. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainants have prayed that the OPs be directed to provide to the complainant the claim form and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by OPs number 1 and 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complaint is false, malicious and incorrect and has been filed with mala fide intention. On merits, it is admitted that Nanna Singh had obtained the policy in question by paying the premium of Rs.48,383/- which was to be paid annually and the term of the policy was for seven years. It has been stated that the policy of Shri Nanna Singh had already elapsed on 13.3.2015 due to non payment of the premium and further the complainant has not produced any copy of death certificate of Nanna Singh on record. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.
3. In reply filed by OP number 3 and 4, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainants do not have a consumer and service provider relationship with the OP number 3 and 4 as they have not availed any service from the OP number 3 and 4 as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, that the allegations levelled in the complaint are false and without any basis. It is submitted further that the policy relates to ING Life Insurance Company and the Bank has merely acted as a corporate agent of the insurance company. On merits, it is stated that the OPs had assisted the deceased customer in availing the concerned policy post explaining all applicable terms and conditions of the said policy. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 and 2 has produced Ex.OP-1&2/1 to Ex.OP1&2/3 affidavit and copies of documents and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 3 and 4 has produced Ex.OP3&4/1 to Ex.OP3&4/3 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.
5. We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.
6. It is an admitted case of the complainant and the opposite parties that the deceased had purchased the policy in question, as is evident from the copy of proposal form Ex.OP1&2/2. The policy in question was valid for the period from 13.3.2014 and assured sum was to the tune of Rs.4,70,850/-, whereas the life assured Nanna Singh died on 7.12.2015 after the period of one year, but the case of the Ops number 1 and 2 is that at the time of death the policy in question was in lapsed condition. But, without going further into the merits of the case, we find that the complainant has sought direction against the opposite parties number 1 and 2 to provide the claim form. As such, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the OPs number 1 and 2 are directed to provide the claim form to the complainant to lodge the claim along with the supporting documents, if any.
7. Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the OPs number 1 and 2 to provide the claim form to the complainant to submit his claim along with the document, if any. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
May 16, 2018.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
