West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/44/2022

Goutam Das, S.O. Biswaath Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC, Burdhaman Divisonal Office, L and HPF Department - Opp.Party(s)

Kalyan Asish Dhar

28 Jun 2024

ORDER

Shri Sudip Majumder- President-in-Charge.

            The complainant/petitioner files this case U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant/petitioner is the nephew and beneficiary of the insured person, Suchand Das.

            It is the case of the complainant that his maternal uncle namely Suchand Das purchased a LIC policy vide Policy No. 997932580 sum assured Rs. 2,60,000/- date of commencement 28/12/2015 and as such Suchand Das was the insured under the OP insurance company. Suchand Das, insured imposed the name of the complainant, Gautam Das as nominee of the said policy. At the time of imposing the name of the nominee, the OP/LICI did not raised any objection regarding the same.

            It is the next case of the complainant that subsequently, said Suchand Das, insured died on 08/04/2016 due to cerebral stroke and the complainant, Gautam Das submitted death intimation of the deceased Life Assured, Suchand Das along with claim from to the OP/LICI. But, the OP/LICI did not pay any heed to the complainant. the OP/LICI repudiated the claim of the complainant by stating some manufactured and fictitious ground.

            Hence, after finding no other alternative the complainant is compelled to file this complaint before this Forum/Commission for proper relief and prays for order to:-

 

 

 

                                                            (Page 1 of 5)

 

           

 

            “(i) To pass an order direction the OP to disburse the Sum Assured Amount to the complainant along with interest till the realization of the same.

               (ii) To pay the compensation amount amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/- to the complainants as soon as possible.

             (iii) Rs. 1,00,000/- harassment cost for mental agony and financial loss.

 (iv) Any other relief/reliefs as the Court think fit and proper.”

             The OP/LICI repudiated the claim and stated in Para 11 & 13 of their written version as:

“11) ……..The O.P. L.I.C.I. duly answered said letter vide Letter No. BDO/L&HPF, dt. 19/08/2019 requesting him to advice his client to submit succession certificate and proper KYC/ID proofs containing the name of the person/s wherefrom the relation can be correlated so that the claim be settled as per law with the proper and rightful person/persons.

 13) ……..L.I.C.I. is ready to settle the death claim amount of the policy in question on submission of above referred relevant required documents by the complainant subject to admissibility of the claim.”

The OP No. 3/Pampa Das stated in Para 5 of her written version with an affidavit dated 05/04/2024 as:

“That I have no objection if Ld. Commission permit the complainant to receive and withdraw the amount of the aforesaid policy which purchased by my husband.”

The OP No. 3/Pampa Das also cross examined by Ld. Advocate for the OP/LICI on dock before this Commission dated 06/05/2024. The OP No. 3/Pampa Das stated at the time of cross examination that “her husband had a LIC policy with nomination of Gautam Das, that she notices, if Gautam Das will receive the amount of the claim for the said policy of her husband, she has no objection though she is a legal heir.”

The OP No. 4/Sandipan Das (Tinku) stated in Para 5 of his written version with an affidavit dated 05/04/2024 as:

“That I have no objection if Ld. Commission permit the complainant to receive and withdraw the amount of the aforesaid policy which purchased by my father.”

The OP No. 3/Pampa Das W/o of Late Suchand Das also stated at the time of cross examination that “her husband had a LIC policy with nomination of Gautam Das, that she notices. She states that if Gautam Das will receive the amount of the claim for the said policy of her husband, she has no objection though she is a legal heir.”

 

 

                                                            (Page 2 of 5)

 

 

       

            The OP No. 4/Sandipan Das (Tinku) stated at the time of cross examination that “Gautam Das is his cousin and Late Suchand Das is his father. His father has a LIC policy. He is noticed about the

nomination of his father’s policy. If Gautam Das will receive the amount of the claim for the said LIC- policy of his father, he has no objection though he is a legal heir.”

 Both the parties submitted written notes on argument (W/N/A). Some documents have also been filed by the complainant’s side and compared with original documents. Thereafter, respective Ld. Advocates for both sides made oral argument in support of their case.

            Heard Ld. advocates for both sides.

            Considered.

Perused all the documents.

Points for determination/Issues

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer as per definition of the term ‘Consumer’ of the C.P Act. ?
2. Whether this Commission has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

Point No. 1:

            In this case, the deceased Suchand Das being the “LIC Policy Holder” who purchased the same on payment of proper fees and which covered death claim insurance policy was a consumer under the OP/LICI and the complainant being the nominee as well as the beneficiary of the deceased is a consumer under the OP/LICI and the OP/LICI is the service provider. Hence, the complainant is a consumer as per Sec. 2(7)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Point No. 2:

            In this case, the cause of action arose from 19/08/2019 (i.e. the date of repudiation from the part of OP/LICI) and lastly on 10/03/2022 (i.e. the date when the complainant made request to disburse his claim). The case has been filed on 18/04/2022 and as such it can be said that the complainant has been filed this case within the statutory period of the C.P. Act, 2019 and as such the instant complaint is not barred U/S 69(1) of the C.P. Act, 2019.

Pecuniary Jurisdiction of this District Commission as per Notification No. G.S.R. 892(E). dated 20^th December, 2022 by Consumer Affairs Department, Govt. of India, New Delhi is Rs. 50 lakh.

That the complainant is a resident of Vill.- Bagolpur, P.O. & P.S.- Md. Bazar,Dist. Birbhum, which is under the Territorial Jurisdiction of this District Commission as per Sec. 34(2) of C.P. Act, 2019.

                                                                             (Page 3 of 5)

           

 

             Hence, this Commission has Pecuniary Jurisdiction as well as Territorial Jurisdiction on the present issue.

Point No. 3:

From the above written statement of OP Nos. 3 and 4 this Commission is of the view that as there is no objection from OP Nos. 3 and 4 regarding the settlement if LICI the claim amount to the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner is legitimate claim as a nominee of the policy in question.

The OP/LICI on several occasions harassed the complainant and did not pay Rs. 2,60,000/- as the death claim of the LIC policy to the beneficiary/complainant which proved beyond all reasonable doubt

that there is/was deficiency in service as per    Sec. 2(11) of the C.P. Act, 2019 as well as unfair trade practice as per Sec. 2(47) of the C.P. Act, 2019 on the part of the OP Nos. 1 and 2.

Point No. 4:

            From the documentary evidence as available in the case record it is crystal clear that Suchand Das the “LIC Policy Holder” by purchasing insurance policy on payment of proper fees and when it is admitted from the end of the OP/LICI that it had covered death claim insurance policy then the complainant is entitled to get the claim from the OP/LICI. Being the service provider the OP/LICI is bound to pay the claim to the complainant.

• In ICICI Bank Ltd. Rep. By Its. vs. Mr. Kateka Sudhakar,S/O K.J… on 5 March, 2018 the Hon’ble State Commission, Hyderabad stated in Para 16 as follows:-

“16. The Supreme Court held that the compensation to be awarded is to be fair and reasonable.          In Charan Singh vs Healing Touch Hospital and others 2000SAR(Civil) 935 the Apex Court stressed the need of balancing between the compensation awarded recompensing the consumer  and the change it brings in the attitude of the service provider. The Court held While quantifying damages , consumer forums are required to make an attempt to serve ends of justice so that compensation is awarded, in an established case, which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the individual, but which also at the same time aims to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider. Indeed calculation of damages depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for universal application. While awarding compensation, a Consumer Forum has to take into account all relevant factors and assess compensation on the basis of accepted legal principles, on moderation. It is for the Consumer Forum to grant compensation to the extent it finds it reasonable, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of a given case according to established judicial standards where the claimant is able to establish his charge.”

                                                         (Page 4 of 5)

                            

 

  Keeping the view of the Hon’ble Apex Court’s observations in mind in respect of the manner of the compensation and quantum of compensation as per fact and circumstances of the present case this Commission is of opinion that in the instant case the loss of the complainant will serve in just way in terms of money and the quantum of compensation and it will be just and proper if the OP is directed to pay Rs. 50,000/-(Fifty thousand only) to the petitioner or complainant as compensation as against mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

     Hence, it is,

            O R D E R E D,

                                        that the instant C.C. Case No. 44/2022 be and same is allowed in part on contest with cost. The OP Nos. 1 and 2/LICI are jointly or severally directed to pay Rs. 2,60,000/- (Two lakh sixty thousand only) as insurance claim to the complainant.

The OP Nos. 1 and 2 are also jointly/severally directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand only) to the complainant/petitioner as against mental agony and harassment to the complainant and to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand only) to the complainant as cost of litigation.

The entire decree will be complied by the OP Nos. 1 and 2 within 45 (Forty five) days from this date of order, in default the complainant is at liberty to put this order to execution in accordance with law.

 The instant case is thus disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given/handed over to the parties to this case free of cost.