BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CAMP COURT AT LUDHIANA
Received by way of transfer Consumer Complaint No.128 of 2018
Date of institution: 23.02.2018
Date of decided on 18.7.2022.
Balwinder Kaur wife of Late Sh. Manjeet Singh son of Late Sh. Didar Singh, resident of House No. B-408/11, Durlabh Nagar, Samrala, District Ludhiana
…….Complainant
Versus
Life Insurance Company, having its Branch Office at Sameer Bhawan, Opposite SBOP, Chandigarh Road, Samrala, District Ludhiana.
……..Opposite Parties
QUORUM:-
HON’BLE MR. RANJEET SINGH, PRESIDENT
HON’BLE MRS.RANVIRKAUR,MEMBER
PRESENT:-
Sh. H.P. Singh, Advocate, for complainant
Sh. V.K. Gupta, Advocate, for OP
ORDER
SH. RANJEET SINGH, PRESIDENT
The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Party on the ground that the husband of the complainant namely Sh. Manjeet Singh, had purchased a policy No.302586237 in the year 2015 from the opposite party and husband of the complainant paid the requisite premium with respect to the said policy. In this regard, the opposite party has also issued an insurance policy cover note to above said Manjeet Singh. In the said policy, the complainant was also the nominee. Some time back, the husband of the complainant had died and before his death, he was remained ill for long time and he was suffering from various diseases. After his death, the complainant informed the opposite party regarding the death of her husband Manjeet Singh through letter dated 20.01.2018 and through the said letter, the complainant requested the OP to pay the total amount premium of the said policy to her regarding the death of her husband Manjeet Singh. It is further alleged that after receiving the said intimation letter of complainant, the OP has also issued a letter to the complainant by mentioning that they have received the death intimation of said Manjeet Singh vide information letter dated 20.01.2018 and policy is lying lapsed from 05,2016 and as per condition of the policy any benefit under the policy is payable provided the policy is in full force by payment of upto date premium and death claim cannot be considered under the said policy. The insurance policy is fully valid and the complainant is entitled for her total amount of premium i.e. 1,00,000/- of the said policy on account of death of her husband Manjeet Singh and the complainant by visiting the office of the opposite party many times requested the opposite party to pay the said amount but OP started linger on the matter and ultimately, the opposite party totally refused to pay any amount to the complainant. The aforesaid act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and it has caused mental as well as physical agony and also caused inconvenience to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-
- To direct the OP to pay the claim amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
- To pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental harassment, which the complainant has to face due to irresponsible attitude of the OPs.
2. In reply, the OP has filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that complaint is not maintainable; that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated after thorough application of mind; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. On merits, it is stated that on receiving the intimation of death of life assured Manjit Singh the OP gave the reply to the complainant Smt. Balwinder Kaaur that the policy is lying in lapsed condition from 28.5.2016 and as per policy conditions death claim cannot be considered under the policy. Rest of allegations leveled by the complainant against the answering OP have been denied and prayed for dismissal the complaint.
3. In support of the complaint, the complainant has tendered various documents. On the other hand, the OP also tendered certain documents in support of their version.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that Manjeet Singh husband of the complainant has brought insurance of Rs.1,00,000/- on 28.5.2015 and May 2035 being date of commencement and being date of maturity. The complainant was nominee Rs.8528/- was annual premium. However, the policy lapsed with effect from 28.5.2016 due to nonpayment of further premium. The complainant intimated the death of her husband vide letter dated 20.01.2018.
6. From the drafting evidence of both the parties, it revealed that at the time of the death of said Manjeet Singh, the policy was not alive rather the same has already lapsed due to nonpayment of annual premium by the complainant party. It is pertinent to mention here that the said Manjeet Singh had discontinued the payment of annual premium in the very beginning of the policy without any convincing reasons. As the payment of regular annual premium was the fundamental condition of the contract of insurance, hence the complainant is not entitled to insurance amount.
7. Consequently, the present complaint is dismissed. However, without any cost in the circumstances of the case. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The file be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the Record Room.
July 18, 2022
(Ranjit Singh)
(Ranvir Kaur)
RBT/ CC No.128 of 2018
Present: Sh. HP Singh, Adv. counsel for complainant
Sh. VK Gupta, Adv. For OP
Vide our separate detailed order of today, the complaint stands dismissed. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The file be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the Record Room.
July,18 2022
(Ranjit Singh)
(Ranvir Kaur)
