Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/81

Nasib Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Kumar Mittal

19 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :       81

Date of Institution:   3.05.2017

Date of Decision :    19.09.2017

 

Naseeb Kaur aged about 63 years, w/o late Harnek Singh s/o Gurnam Singh r/o Village Gumti Khurd, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot (Punjab).

                                                           

      ........Complainant

Versus

1. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd, Kotak Infiniti, 7^th Floor, Zone-4, Building No. 21, Infinity Park, Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon Mulund, Link road, Malad (E), Mumbai-400097.
2. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd, Kotak Infiniti, 7^th Floor, Zone-4, Building No. 21, Infinity Park, Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon Mulund, Link road, Malad (E), Mumbai-400097.
3. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd, Branch Office at Mall Road, 2^nd Floor, Gees Mall, Bathinda.
4. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd, Branch Office at G T Road, 4^th Floor, G K Plaza, Moga.

........OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Sh P L Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Amit Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh Amrit Bansal, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                                          Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of  insurance benefits for policy no.01924986 and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs.33,000/-.

 2                                                       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that husband of complainant was insured with Ops vide insurance policy ‘Kotak Long Life Wealth Plus’ bearing no.01924986 and as per policy he was to pay Rs.10,000/- as premium of policy after every half year for a span of ten years. Policy in question was purchased on 16.03.2010 and complainant was nominee in said policy. Husband of complainant paid last premium on 16.03.2016 and next premium was to be paid on 16.09.2016. it is further submitted that on 28.08.2016, husband of complainant died  and after his death, complainant visited the office of Ops at Bathinda and duly intimated them regarding death of her husband and requested them to pay the insurance claim, but they put her off and asked her to go to their office at Moga. Complainant visited at their office in Moga and requested them to give her benefits under insurance claim, but they did not pay any heed to her requests. Complainant made several requests to OPs to make payment of claim amount, but all in vain and this action of OPs in not making payment of insurance claim amount amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. The complainant has prayed for directions                         to Ops to make payment of insurance claim alongwith other benefits under the policy and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs.33,000/-. Hence, the complaint.

3                                               The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 21.03.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                              On receipt of the notice, the OPs filed written statement taking preliminary objections that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint and complainant is not the consumer of answering OPs. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on their part and complainant is stopped by her own act and conduct to file the present complaint as complainant has already received the insurance claim for death of her husband. Complaint filed by complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed. Complaint involves complicated questions of law and facts requiring detailed evidence, which is not permissible in the Consumer Protection Act. However, on merits, Ops have denied all the allegations of complainant but admitted before the Forum that husband of complainant was insured with them and she was  nominated  in case of insurance claim. It is also admitted by Ops that they received payment of premiums till 16.03.2016. however, they have denied other allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that when they received legal notice on 2.02.2017 regarding intimation of death of husband of complainant, they immediately replied to same and asked the complainant to submit them relevant documents required for processing the claim and on receipt of requisite documents, on 24.03.2017, they processed the claim on account of death of Harnek Singh the deceased husband of complainant.  OPs brought before the Forum that they have paid Rs.1,72,713.98 to the complainant, who is nominee to receive the insurance claim. It is further averred by Ops that sum assured under insurance claim was Rs.1,00,000/-and they have paid Rs.1,72,713.98 to complainant which is more than the sum assured. It is asserted that no cause of action arises against answering Ops as entire payment under insurance claim upto full satisfaction of complainant has already been paid to her and now nothing is due towards them on account of insurance claim. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. There is no malafide intention or exploitation by OPs as claim of complainant has been fully satisfied. All the other allegations have been denied being wrong, incorrect and false and it is reiterated that there is no harassment, deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                                                 Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-7 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                                In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite party tendered in evidence, affidavit of Nirmal Gulhane as Ex OP-1and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-5 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                                        We have heard the arguments advanced by ld counsel of both the parties and have also gone through the pleadings and evidence led by respective parties.             

8                                                          From the careful perusal of record placed on record and after thoroughly considering the pleadings made by parties it is observed that grievance of complainant is that her husband was insured with Ops vide insurance policy ‘Kotak Long Life Wealth Plus’ bearing no.01924986 and as per policy he was to pay Rs.10,000/- as premium of policy after every half year for a span of ten years. Policy commence on 16.03.2010 and complainant was nominee in said policy. Husband of complainant paid his premium till 16.03.2016, but unfortunately, husband of complainant died on 28.08.2016 and after his death, complainant visited the office of Ops at Bathinda and Moga and requested them to give her benefits under insurance claim, but they did not pay any heed to her requests, which amounts to deficiency in service. On the other hand, Ops stressed mainly on the point that they have paid entire amount under insurance claim on account of death of husband of complainant to her being nominee in said policy and now, nothing is due towards them as insurance claim. As per OPs on receipt of information regarding death of Harnek Singh through legal notice issued by complainant, they immediately started processing the task of paying claim and asked her to supply relevant documents required for the purpose and on receipt of requisite documents, they made payment of insurance claim of Rs.1,72,713.98 to the complainant, who is nominee to receive the insurance claim. It is also observed that sum assured under insurance claim was Rs.1,00,000/-and OPs have paid Rs.1,72,713.98 to complainant which is more than the sum assured. In the light of document Ex OP-5, it is clear and there is no doubt that OPs have made payment of Rs.1,72,713.98 by crediting the same in the State Bank of India account of complainant bearing no.11444693033 as full and final settlement of claim.

9                                                 From the above discussion and in the light of documents produced by OPs, it is made out that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs as they have paid Rs.1,72,713.98 to the complainant in full settlement of insurance claim  and nothing is due towards them. Complainant has failed to prove her case. We are fully convinced with the arguments of OPs and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 19.09.2017                 

 

             Member                              President

                                        (P Singla)                         (Ajit Aggarwal)

 

 

cc-81/17

Naseeb Kaur Vs Kotak Mahindra

 

Present: Sh Amit Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh Amrit Bansal, Ld Counsel for OPs.

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate detailed order of even date, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 19.09.2017                 

         

                             Member                       President