Haryana

StateCommission

CC/16/2014

Anita Thakur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited - Opp.Party(s)

13 Aug 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Complaint No  :      16 of 2014

Date of Institution: 07.02.2014

Date of Decision :  13.08.2015

 

Anita Thakur w/o late Shri Chander Mohan Thakur, House No.385, Sector 9, Panchkula (Haryana).

                                      Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Kotak Mahindra Old Life Insurance Limited through its General Manager/Operation Head, 4^th Floor
Vinay Bhavya Complex, 159 A CST Road, Kalina, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400098, India.

 

2.      Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Panchkula through its Branch Manager, SCO No.389, Sector-8, Panchkula.

 

3.      Kotak Mahindra Old Life Insurance Limited through its Branch Manager/Operation Head, SCO 141-142, Second Floor Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. 

                                      Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                              

Present:              Shri Rahul Jaswal, Advocate with Ms.Anita Thakur-complainant.

                             Shri Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 & 3.

                             Shri Puneet Tuli, Advocate for opposite party No.2.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Chander Mohan Thakur-since deceased (husband of Anita Thakur-complainant, purchased Life Insurance Policy (Exhibit C-1) from Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties No.1 & 3, under ‘Kotak Preferred Term Plan’ for Rs.50.00 lacs for 24 years. The payment mode of premium was annual.

2.      The insured was murdered on May 23^rd, 2013 in the area of Dappar Ghaggar Railway Track near Derabassi, District Mohali (Pb.). F.I.R. No.50 dated June 11^th, 2013 (Exhibit C-4) was registered in Police Station: Government Railway Police Station, Patiala. The inquest proceedings were drawn by the Police under Section 174 Cr.P.C. In the Police Report (Exhibit C-2), the cause of death was mentioned railway accident. Post Mortem Examination of the deceased was conducted vide report Exhibit C-3. The viscera of the deceased was sent to Chemical Examiner, Government Punjab, the report of which is Exhibit C-5.  

3.      The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but it did not pay the insured amount. Hence, this complaint before this Commission.

4.      The Insurance Company-opposite parties contested complaint by filing reply stating therein that the ‘cause of death’ of the deceased has yet not been ascertained, therefore, complainant’s claim was under investigation to arrive conclusion as to whether or not it was an accidental death or suicide. It was stated that the Insurance Policy was issued on December 31^st, 2012 and the insured died on May 23^rd, 2013, that is, within five months from issuance of the policy and his dead body was found in mysterious circumstances. In case it is proved to be a suicidal death, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the benefits of insurance as per Clause 6 of the Policy. Denying any kind of deficiency in service, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

5.      Complainant in her evidence appeared as CW-1 and also tendered documents Exhibit C-1 to Exhibit C-8.

6.      The opposite parties No.1 and 3 tendered in their evidence affidavit (Exhibit Op1/A) of Cedric Fernandes, alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-6.

7.      Counsel heard. File perused.

8.      Indisputably, the deceased was insured with the Insurance Company vide Insurance Policy Exhibit C-1. It is also not in dispute that the insured was found dead near railway track on May 23^rd, 2013 in the area of Dappar Ghaggar Track near Derabassi (Pb.).

9.      Contention raised on behalf of the Insurance Company was that though initially the dead body was taken from railway track, however, the complainant has filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, alleging it to be a murder with specific allegations against two persons and writ petition was still pending. Besides, the matter still being under investigation and unless the Police submit the final report, the insured amount cannot be released.  

10.    The submission made is not tenable. Whether murder or accident, under both the eventualities, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the insured amount. Besides the post mortem examination report (Exhibit C-3), it finds mentioned as railway accident and the final opinion being left to be given after the report of the Chemical Examiner and report of Chemical Examiner Exhibit C-6 not indicating the presence of poison in the viscera, and there being no evidence on behalf of the opposite parties in support of plea of suicide, the opposite parties cannot avoid their liability.

11.    In view of the above, there is nothing on the record to show that the opposite parties are not liable to pay the benefits of insurance to the complainant. Hence, the complaint is accepted. The opposite parties are directed to pay the insured amount, that is, Rs.50.00 lacs to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realisation. Cost of litigation is quantified at Rs.10,000/-. The opposite parties are directed to comply with the order within 45 days from today. 

 

Announced 13.08.2015

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL