Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Room No. 208 2^nd Floor, District Administrative Complex, Tarn Taran

Consumer Complaint No  : 50 of 2017

Date of Institution                      : 25.07.2017

Date of Decision               : 17.02.2021

1. Gurjit Kaur wife of Late Sardool Singh,
2. Sukhmandeep Singh aged 15 years minor son,
3. Manreet Kaur aged 9 years minor daughter respectively of Late Sardool Singh so of Virsa Singh, minors through their real mother and natural guardian Smt. Gurjit Kaur residents of village Gharyala, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran.

                                                ...Complainants

Versus

1. Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Limited, 10^th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013,
2. The Managing Director, Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Ltd. 10^th Floor, Tower A, Peninusla Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai, 400013,
3. The Area Manager, Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Limited, near Guru Nanak Mission Hospital, Eminate Mall, Jalandhar,
4. The Tarn Taran Central Co operative Bank Branch Gharyala, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran through its Branch Manager,
5. The Tarn Taran Central Co-operative Bank Head Office: Tarn Taran, District Amritsar through its Managing Director,

…Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum:               Sh. Charanjit Singh, President

Sh. Jatinder Singh Pannu, Member

For Complainant                               Sh. Jasbir Singh Advocate

For Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3                  Sh. R.R. Arora Advocate

For Opposite Parties No. 4 and 5     Sh. S.S. Anand Advocate

ORDERS:

Jatinder Singh Pannu, Member

1        The complainants Gurjit Kaur etc.  have filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (herein after called as 'the Act') against Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Limited, and others (Opposite Parties) by alleging that the complainant No. 2 Sukhmandeep Singh is minor son, complainant No. 3 Mandeep Kaur is minor daughter of Sardool Singh son of Virsa Singh and both the minor children are living under the care and guardianship of their real mother and natural guardian Smt. Gurjeet Kaur widow of Sardool Singh who has got no adverse interest against the minors, therefore, the present complaint is being filed by the minor complainant Nos. 2 and 3 through their real mother and natural guardian Smt. Gurjit Kaur. Sardool Singh had got opened an account bearing No. 192934036141669 in opposite party No.4 and under (S.B.B.Y) scheme and he was insured by the opposite party No. 4 under insurance policy for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 vide insurance policy No. 4113-200501-15-5000012-00-011 dated 1.6.2015. Sardool Singh husband of complainant No. 1 and father of minor  complainant Nos. 2 and 3 was an agriculturist and he went to the fields on 11.8.2015 when he was cutting the grass from the water course for irrigation of his paddy then he cut by snake (snake bite) and in this condition Sardool Singh reaches to his residential house, then the foam/ froth came from his mouth and died on 11.8.2015. Thereafter, the complainant No. 1 moved an application No. 78 by hand to P.S. Valtoha dated 17.9.2015 and one to Sub Divisional Magistrate Patti District Tarn Taran which was marked to Incharge, Police Post Gharyakla, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran who had got enquired the matter thoroughly and got recorded the statement of complainant. The Panchyatnama was also executed by the Gram Panchyat of village Gharyala Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran. The complainant No. 1 was under great shock due to suddenly/ untimely death of her husband namely Sardool Singh and hence she could not conduct the postmortem of the deceased. The claim was lodged with the opposite parties No.1  to 3 through opposite parties No. 4 and 5 after going through the various process. The opposite parties No. 1 to 3 flatly refused to accept the insurance claim of the complainants and expressed its unwillingness to accept the insurance claim vide its letter dated 13.4.2017. The act of the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 is a deficiency in service. Late husband of complainant n. 1 and father of minor complainant Nos. 2, 3 namely Sardool Singh was a consumer of the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 and the complainant party being the heirs of Sardool Singh have stepped in to the shoes of Sardool Singh and the complainants are entitled to all the claims and property and this claim arising out of the death of Sardool Singh. The complainants are very poor persons and a lot of money is required for the daily necessities of life, as the complainant No. 1 is having minor kids i.e. complainant Nos. 2, 3 who are school going children and the complainants are legally entitled to receive the insured amount alongwith other benefits from the insurance company/ opposite parties. The complainants has prayed that the appropriate directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to accept the genuine surrender insurance claim of the complainants and to grant/ release the surrender insurance claim pertaining to the above said insurance policy to the complainants immediately without any further delay without any prejudice. The opposite parties may also be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the complainants as damages and compensation for unnecessary harassment, inconvenience, agony and mental tension suffered by the complainants at the hands of the opposite parties.

2        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and opposite parties No. 1 to 3 appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and had suppressed material facts from this Forum.  The complainant parties have misled and withheld material facts from this Forum and presented a concocted story just in order to have monitory benefits. The complainant party has not complied with the terms and conditions of the policy and above all the opposite party has sent number of letters dated 17/10/7/2016, 26/7/2016, 16/8/2016, 12/10/2006 and also final reminder letter dated 13.4.2017 but till today the complainant has not replied to the quarries raised by answering opposite parties and neither provided the relevant documents.  The complainant party has not provided till date copy of Post mortem Report or any medical record from Hospital which shows and proves that deceased Sardool Singh has died due to Snake bite neither the complainant party has placed on record that they are the L.Rs. of deceased Sardool Singh nor any dependency or successor certificate was provided to pursue this case. The complainant party has not produced any document or any justification why they had lodged the claim and information at belated stage, no explanation is since for neither delay nor is any satisfactory reply given to explain delay. The complainant party has not placed on record any documentary proof of identification, their address neither any proof etc. was produced.  Neither the complainant party has submitted any claim form, nor they have supplied any record of Hospital, no record of police proceedings to prove their alleged submissions i.e. inquest report/ Panchnama report. All the detailed documents demanded by answering opposite parties are fully described in the above mentioned correspondence done by them but the complainant party has not complied nor supplied even a single documents, despite number of reminders and representations served by the answering opposite parties but the complainant had not paid any heed. The answering opposite parties are not liable for misdeeds and unethical acts of complainant and hence the present complaint be dismissed with heavy costs and in the on merits, the opposite parties No.1 to 3 have denied the contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3        The opposite party No. 4 appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that the present complaint against the replying opposite parties is not legally maintainable. The replying opposite parties are only doing the business of banking. The husband of the complainant opened S.B.B.Y account in the replying opposite parties and the replying opposite parties forwarded all the documents and premium to the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 who issued the insurance policy No. 4113-200501-15-5000012-00-011 dated 1.6.2015. After the death of husband of the complainant, she submitted the documents to the replying opposite parties who further sent the same to the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 and except that there is no function of the replying opposite parties. The claim has to be accepted or declined by the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 only. The replying opposite parties have unnecessarily been dragged in the present case. The complainant herself has submitted the complete documents as per the requirement of the opposite parties No. 1 to 3. There is no deficiency or negligence on the part of the opposite parties and as such the present complaint is not legally maintainable against the replying opposite parties and does not lie and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. The complainant is not consumer of the opposite parties. She paid the premium to the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 and hired the services of opposite parties No. 1 to 3 and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. There is no privity of contract between the replying opposite parties and complainant and the replying opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant regarding the alleged policy and as such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint against the replying opposite parties. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint against the opposite parties No. 4 and 5 and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  The complainant is estopped by her own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. On merits,  it was pleaded that the complainant has not submitted the post mortem report as required by the Insurance Company i.e. opposite parties No. 1 to 3. The documents which were submitted by the complainant to the replying opposite parties, those were sent to the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 and the replying opposite parties have performed its duty which was required to be done by them.  The replying opposite parties have denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5        To prove his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex. C-1, alongwith documents i.e. Self attested copy of Account Opening Form Ex. C-2,  Self attested copy of Claim Form Ex. C-3, Self attested copy of Death certificate of  Sardool Singh Ex. C-4,  Self attested of application written to SDO Patti Ex. C-5,  self attested copy of statement of Gurjit Kaur Ex. C-6, Self attested copy of Panchyat Nama dated 20.9.2015 Ex. C-7,  Affidavit of Kulbir Singh son of Balwant Singh resident of village Gharyala Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran Ex. C-8 and closed the evidence. On the other hands, Ld. counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Neeraj Shivangikar Ex. OPs 1 to 3/1, alongwith documents  i.e. self attested copy of policy schedule Ex. OPs 1 to 3/2, Annexure III Ex. OPs 1 to 3/3,  Self attested copy of Letter dated 17.6.2016 Ex. OPs 1 to 3/4, Self attested copy of letter dated 7.7.2016 Ex. OPs 1 to 3/5,  Self attested copy of send reminder letter dated 26.7.2016 Ex. OPs 1 to 3/6,  Self attested copy of 3^rd  reminder letter dated 16.8.2016 Ex. OPs 1 to 3/7, Self attested copy of final reminder letter dated 12.10.2016 Ex. OPs 1 to 3/8 and closed the evidence. The opposite parties No. 4 and 5 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sukhjit Kaur Manager Ex. OPs 4, 5/1 and closed the evidence.  

6        We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the complainant and opposite parties and have gone through the evidence and documents placed on the file by the parties.

7        In the present case, it is not disputed that the complainant has obtained the insurance from the opposite parties No.1 to 3. The stand of the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 is that the complainant has not complied with the terms and conditions of the policy and the answering opposite parties have sent number of letters dated 17.6.2016 (Ex. OP1 to 3/4), 7.7.2016 (Ex. OPs 1 to 3/5), 26.7.2016 (Ex. OPs 1 to 3/6),  16.8.2016 (Ex. OPs 1 to 3/7), letter dated 12.10.2016 (Ex. OPs 1 to 3/8) but till today the complainant has not replied to the quarries raised by opposite parties No. 1 to 3 and neither provided the relevant documents as demanded by the replying opposite parties No. 1 to 3. Due to non-supply of  documents to the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 by the complainant vide ibid letters, the present claim is pre mature. From the perusal of the file, it reveals that the claim of the complainant has not been decided so far.  On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for the complainant alleged that the complainant has supplied all the documents but no any document has been placed on record by the complainant showing that the documents as demanded vide letters Ex. OPs 1 to 3/4 to Ex. OPs 1 to 3/8 have been supplied to the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 by the complainant. In case Balu Waman Kadam vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. IV (2013) CPJ 16A (CN) (Mah.), the matter was similar, wherein the Insurance Company was asking the complainant to submit the documents and the complainant was alleging that he had already submitted the requisite documents to the Insurance Company. In such circumstances, the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra disposed of the matter, by directing the Insurance Company to reconsider the claim of the complainant within one month on receipt of the required documents from the complainant.

8        While relying upon the above said authority, the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh passed the similar orders in case M/s Trends, through its Proprietor vs The Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr. Consumer Complaint No.245 of 2015 decided on 04.08.2017; and M/s Gurbir Rice Mills v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. Consumer Complaint No.404 of 2016, decided on 09.10.2017, directing the Insurance Company to reconsider the claim of the complainant after submission of requisite documents by the complainant to it.

9        In view of our above discussion as well as keeping in view the ratio of above said judgments, we are of the opinion that the end of justice would be met, if the Insurance Company be directed to decide the claim of the complainant, after the complainant submit all the requisite documents.

10      In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is disposed of with the direction to the complainant to submit the requisite documents as mentioned in letters Ex. OPs 1 to 3/4 to Ex. OPs 1 to 3/8 for deciding the claim within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of order to the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 and on approaching the complaint for supplying the requisite documents, the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 will issue proper receipt acknowledging the same. The opposite parties No. 1 to 3 shall decide the claim of the complainant within a further period of two months therefrom and in case of failure on the part of the opposite parties No. 1 to 3, the claim case of the complainant deemed to have been accepted.  Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties as per rules. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Charanjit Singh)  

                             President               (J.S. Pannu)

                                                         Member