<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 28/01/2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 26th FEBRUARY 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.242/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Smt.Nagarathnamma,W/o Eshwaraiah,Aged 45 years,R/o No.79, Sharada Market,6th Floor, C.T Street,Bangalore – 560053.Advocate – N.R.ShobdaV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Branch Manager,L.I.C of India,Bangalore Division – I,Bangalore.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to settle the insurance claim and pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant is the mother of one Smt.Savithri who obtained the L.I.C policies from OP, one for Rs.50,000/- dated 28.07.2005 and another for the same sum dated 28.11.2006. Complainant is made as a nominee under the said two polices. Smt.Savithri, the insured was regular in making payment of the premium without default. The insured died on 11.07.2007. Immediately complainant approached the OP to settle the said two insurance policies and pay the sum assured. But her efforts went in futile. Then she was forced to issue the notice, OP gave an untenable reply on 02.12.2008. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of her, she is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Though the intimation sent by OP shows that the last premium paid and next premium due being 28.10.2007 before the next premium Savithri died. This fact is not considered by the OP. So the repudiation is unjust and improper. Under the circumstances complainant is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP. Though OP is duly served with the notice remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. The absence of the OP does not appear to be as bona fide and reasonable. Hence OP is placed Ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP didn’t participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. It is the case of the complainant that her daughter Smt.Savithri took two L.I.C policies each for Rs.50,000/- dated 28.07.2005 and 28.11.2006 and her daughter was regular in making payment of the premium. Unfortunately Smt.Savithri died on 11.07.2007 leaving behind the complainant as her heir and the nominee under the said policies. After the death of her daughter complainant made a claim to OP on 07.12.2007 and requested OP to settle insurance policy and pay the sum assured but her efforts went in futile. She gave notice to OP for that OP gave an untenable reply on 02.12.2008. Hence she felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> 5. The fact that the complainant is the nominee under the said two policies is not at dispute. But the contention of the complainant that insured Savithri was regular in making payment of the premium appears to be not correct. Merely because OP has not appeared that does not mean that what ever the complainant has stated is a gospel truth, burden lies on the complainant to establish her case by producing necessary documents. There is no proof that premium is regularly paid. On the perusal of the reply given by the OP it speaks to the fact that both the policies stood lapsed for want of non payment of the premium due in time. Even in the grace period also the said premium is not paid.<br /> <br /> 6. Further the said letter discloses that there is a violation of policy conditions by the insured in not making payment of the premium in time. The policy would acquire paid up value provided premium is paid for a minimum period of three years. But in the instant case the premium is paid only for 1½ year or so. Under such circumstances complainant is not entitled for the paid up value also. We find there is a substance in the defence raised by the OP.<br /> <br /> 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case when OP admits that the complainant is the nominee under the said policy even if they cannot settle the claim for the sum assured or to pay paid up value but still in the interest of justice they would have at least refunded what ever the premium amount that they have received from the insured during her life time to the nominee, the complainant. Unfortunately OP has not opted for the same. Here we find deficiency in service on the part of the OP. People go for the insurance in a good faith that OP will come to their aid and assistance at the hour of need, but if OP raise such technical objections then people may loose the faith in the insurance system.<br /> <br /> 8. In view of the discussions made by us, we find it is a fit case wherein OP be directed to refund what ever the premium that is paid with respect to the said two policies to the complainant the nominee along with a litigation cost. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund the premium amount with respect to the two polices No.614882771 and 615047366 received from the life assured and pay a litigation cost of Rs.500/-. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 26th day of February 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />