Tripura

West Tripura

CC/39/2015

Smti. Sima Rani Kar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. & 3 others. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.P.K.Dhar, Mr.A.D.Sarkar,Mr.H.Chakraborty, Mr.R.G.Chakraborty

11 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC- 39 of 2015

Smt. Sima Rani Kar,
W/O- Sri Swapankar,
Gopal Nagar, Kunjaban,
P.O. & P.S. Kalyanpur,
District- Khowai, Tripura.            .…...Complainant.

       VERSUS

1. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd.,
Kotak Infiniti Building No.21, Infinity Park,
Off Western Express High Way, 
General A.K. Vaidya Marg, Malad(E),
Mumbai- 400097, Maharastra.

2. The In-charge, Head Retail,
Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.,
Sadhana House, 2nd Floor,
Behind Mahindra Towers,
570, P.B. Marg, Worli,
Mumbai- 400018, Maharastra.

3. The In-charge,
Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.,
Agartala Branch Office, C.R. Road,
Agartala, P.S. East Agartala, West Tripura,

4. Sri Rajesh Kar,
S/O- Sri Swapan Kar,
Gopalnagar, Kunjaban,
P.O. & P.S. Kalyanpur,
District- Khowai, Tripura.            .........Opposite parties.

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant        : Sri Pradyot Kumar Dhar,
                      Sri Abhijit Deb Sarkar,
                      Sri H. Chakraborty,
                      Sriu Rana Gopal Chakraborty,
                      Advocates.

For the O.P. No. 1 & 2        : Sri Pranabashis Majumdar,
                      Advocate,

For the O.P. No. 3            : Sri Bhaskar Deb,
                      Sri Debjoy Majumdar,
                      Advocates.    

For the O.P. No. 4            : Smt. Swastika Das,
                      Advocate.

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  11.08.2016

 

J U D G M E N T
        This case arises on the petition filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioners case in short is that one Shani Kar, son of the complainant purchased the vehicle from Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Company taking loan in the name of  deceased Shani Kar. Rajesh Kar was the guarantor of such loan. The vehicle was purchased through Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Insurance policy was issued by Kotak  Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. Coverage was for an amount of Rs.3,40,000/-. Premium was Rs.3333/-. On 24.05.11 Shani Kar committed suicide. Police case was registered and criminal case filed U/S 306/34 I.P.C. On the death of Shani Kar his survivors and complainant claimed death benefit under insurance policy. But the claim was not entertained. It was not settled by the O.P. It caused harassment to the complainant. The claim was out dated therefore outstanding amount of Rs.1,03765/- was taken after death of Shani Kar. Insurance coverage was for Rs.3,40,000/-. Petitioner was asked to pay total amount of Rs.5 lakhs. 

2.        O.P. No.1, Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. filed W.S denying the claim. It is stated that the any claim arising as a result of a member under this policy committing suicide within one year of commencement of his/her cover, will be disallowed as per clause 10. As per clause 7 any claim arising as  result of committing suicide within one year after the commencement of the policy will be disallowed. As such the claim was repudiated  on 30.03.13 and no relief accrued at all. 

3.        On the basis of contention following points cropped up for determination:
        (i) Whether the death claim was rightly repudiated or not?
        (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation amounting to Rs.5 lakhs?

4.        Claimant petitioner side produced Smart Card, Policy certificate, Death certificate, survival certificate, FIR, correspondence, letter, reply letter, demand notice, etc. all photocopies. 
        
O.P. on the other hand, produced Policy documents containing terms and condition, Death intimation, Forensic Science Laboratory reports, all photocopies.
 
6.         Later on W.S filed by O.P. Mahindara & Mahindra Financial Services Company. 

On the basis of all these evidence we shall now determine the points.

Findings
8.        We have gone through the certificate of Insurance. It was issued on 2010. Commencement date 04.08.10. Termination date was 03.08.13. Life assured Shani Kar entered into the agreement. In Para-4 of the complaint petition it is stated that Shani Kar, life assured died on 24.05.11 and he committed suicide. So, commission of suicide by Shani Kar is admitted in the petition in Para-4. From the documents and the investigation report it is found that a case for abetment to commit suicide was filed against the accused person. Charge also framed against them. The charge of abetment was not proved in the court of session for want of evidence. But the fact of commission of suicide is established fact by police investigation. Photocopy of forensic report as produced by the O.P. insurance company & biopsy report also filed along with postmortem report issued by Agartala Govt. Medical college. It is not a case of poisoning as per forensic report. Final opinion of cause of death not given in the postmortem report. But the petitioner himself admitted that it was a case of suicide. We have gone through the certificate of insurance originals as produced by the petitioner. As per clause 10 any claim arising as a result of a member under the policy committing suicide within one year of commencement will be disallowed. In this case the death commission of suicide of deceased Shani Kar is 24.05.11, date of commencement of Insurance coverage policy is 4.8.10. So, within one year from the date of commencement Shani Kar committed suicide. Admitted fact need not to be proved. Therefore, it is clear case that as per terms and condition of Insurance Company Kotak Life Insurance rightly repudiated the claim. Petitioner claims that there was deficiency of service by Kotak Mahindra when they did not give proper service and repudiated the claim. But when the repudiation was proper and as per contract then it can not be said that there was deficiency of service and terms and condition of the policy is to be strictly followed. There is no scope to give any relaxation by this consumer court to give any relief beyond the contract or agreement. Thus, both the points are decided against the petitioner. In view of our opinion over the 2 points this case filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act stands dismissed. No cost is allowed.   

                  Announced.

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.