Complainant Gurnam Singh joined by his brother Kulwant Singh and two sisters through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has sought issuance of necessary directions to the titled opposite parties (for short, ‘the OP1’) namely: i) the Branch Office, LIC of India, Batala (the OP1) and ii) Dalbir Singh S/o Pritam Singh the Performa defendant to settle and pay the full Sum Assured qua the Insurance Death Claim in terms of the related Policy along with interest @12% PA from the date of death of the Policy Holder till realization besides Rs.10,000/- as damages for causing mental harassment and litigation expenses etc., in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainants in brief is that their Sister Beero during her life time had purchased the Insurance Policy # 472152397 (commencing from 24.03.2009) in her name for a sum assured of Rs.50,000/- and regularly paid the premiums of Rs.897/- till March’ 2014. Unfortunately, the life insured Beero demised on 02.04.2014, still unmarried. The nominee father had pre-demised the daughter DLA on 27.08.2008. The complainants being the brothers & sisters and also the legal heirs of the DLA filed the Death Claim with the OP1, along with all the collateral papers etc. The OP1 has since been deferring the claim on false and flimsy grounds and presently insisting upon the production of the ‘succession certificate’ without assigning any cogent reason for the same as the Rules allow settlement of small claims even otherwise, also; and thus prompted the present complaint with the desired relief duly prayed as hereinabove.
3. Upon notice, the OP1 appeared and filed its written reply through the counsel taking the one singular objection that the present complaint was not maintainable in the present form as the life assured as well as the nominee both have since demised and thus the claimants need to procure and produce the requisite ‘succession certificate’ from the competent Court of law to claim the policy moneys etc. All other averments made in the complaint have been duly rebutted and lastly, the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.
4. Both the Parties produced their respective affidavits and documents in support and to prove their respective claims/counter claims. The counsel for the complainants tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C1 duly deposing the pleadings/averments and the evidence produced on his behalf; along with the other documents here exhibited as: Ex.C2 to Ex.C10. On the other hand, the OP1 insurers tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP1 of Yogender Singh Sisidia Manager duly deposing the objections raised and the evidence produced to prosecute their defense. We have examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also duly considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels of both the sides, while adjudicating the present complaint.
5. We find that the OP1 insurers have duly admitted the Policy, the death of the Life Assured and also the pre-demise of the nominee father. However, the OP insurers are insisting that the complainants need to procure and produce the ‘succession certificate’ from the competent court to claim the Policy moneys etc. On the other hand, the counsel (for the complainants) argues that keeping in view the relatively small amount of the present claim (policy-cover moneys to the tune of Rs.50,000/- only), the succession-certificate need be waived of since its procurement is quite expensive besides being time-consuming and cumbersome. Moreover, the OP insurers’ own ‘Claims Manual’ provides for the same at Para 17.1 reading as:
“Although, inter alia, production of proper evidence of title is strictly necessary, before the payment of a claim is made in all cases where the policyholder dies intestate, with a view to relieving the hardship to the policyholders’ heirs and for expeditious settlement of claims, evidence of title may be dispensed with on the claimant’s compliance with certain alternative requirements, provided always that (1) there is no dispute as regards title to the policy moneys and the deceased has not left a will or any other estate besides the policy moneys, for which evidence of title is or has to be obtained from a court of Law. …….”.
Somehow, we are neither pleased with nor we do approve the OP insurers’ counsels’ pleadings (naturally on the OP’s behalf) and insistence upon the ‘succession certificate’ from the present claimants/complainants all being the Class I legal heirs to the deceased Life Assured who admittedly demised intestate, unmarried; leaving behind no other estate other than the policy moneys. A better consumer friendly approach is desired of the Asia’s Largest Life Insurers and all the more when their own Claims Rules provide for the same. The Claim Settlement authorities need to know that all their decisions are open to judicial-review and any arbitrariness shall certainly meet an embarrassing but judicious reversal.
6. In the light of the all above, we hold the OP insurers guilty of arbitrariness amounting to deficiency in service and thus ORDER them to settle and pay the Policy Death Claim to the DLA’s Legal Heirs (confirming their right and identity through alternative but permissible means & measures such as Aadhar Card and indemnity bound etc. as per their Rules/IRDA guidelines etc.) to the full insured amount with all the accrued benefits etc if any and strictly as per the terms and conditions of the related Policy along with Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the undue harassment inflicted besides Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation; within 30 days of receipt of the copy of these orders, otherwise the claim amount shall attract an interest @ 9 % PA form the date of the present orders till actually paid.
7. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri) President.
ANNOUNCED: (G.B.S.Bhullar) (Jagdeep Kaur)
February 10, 2015. Member. Member.
*MK*
