BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.266 of 2020
Date of Instt. 03.09.2020
Date of Decision: 11.08.2023
1. Suraj Parkash Advocate, age 50 years son of late Sh. Surjan Dass.
2. Usha Age 48 years wife of Sh. Suraj Parkash.
3. Mohit Kumar, aged 22 years son of Sh. Suraj Parkash.
All residents of House No.210, Green Park, Near Bus Stand, Jalandhar.
..........Complainants
Versus
1. LIC of India, Unit-4, Divisional Office, Jeevan Parkash, Post Box No.82, Model Town Road, Jalandhar, through its Branch Manager.
2. Life Insurance Corporation of India, H. O. 1st Floor, Yoga Krishna, Nariman Point, Mumbai-40020.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Complainant in Person.
Smt. Sunita Jassal, Adv. Counsel for OPs.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that Chandani was having Life Insurance Policy No.133156522 dated 28.07.2011, for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- which is valid upto 28.07.2025 of the OPs. The premium of the said policy was Rs.6486/-. The complainant No.1 being the father of the said policy holder namely Chandani was paying the installments of the aforesaid policy to the OP No.1 regularly, amounting to Rs.6486/-. Unfortunately, Chandani expired on 18.09.2019, at Handa Neuro Hospital, Jalandhar during the period of the aforesaid policy. After the expiry/death of Chandani, the complainant no.1 visited the office of the OP No.1 to get the claim of the policy of his daughter, but the employee of the OP No.1 put the matter on one pretext or the other and till today, the OPs have not make the payment of the claim of the death of the daughter of the complainant and due to which the complainant suffered deficient and negligent services on the part of the OPs and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to make the payment of the claim of the death of the daughter of the complainant. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs, who filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as no intimation was ever given regarding the death of Chandni to the OPs. It is further averred that the complainants have no locus-standi to file the present complaint as per the policy records the policy bearing No.133156522, favouring Chandni dated 28.07.2011, TT is 102/15/15, SA i.e. 1,00,000/-, FUP is 07/2020, the nomination field is shown as blank, as no nomination is mentioned in the said policy as the life assured was minor at the time of taking the policy and no nomination registered with the OPs and moreover, after completing the age of 18 years, the case is now open title. Moreover, no intimation of death of life assure Chandni was ever received by the OPs. The OPs never committed any deficiency in service, rather the OPs were never informed/intimated about the death of life assured namely Chandni. However, LIC of India is a registered Corporation and have to act as per rules and in case the complainant fulfill the legal formalities, the amount of policy, referred to above, shall be released to the complainant. On merits, it is admitted that Chandni was having life insurance policy which is valid upto 28.07.2025 and the complainant No.1 being the father of the said policy holder was paying the installments of the insurance policy i.e. Rs.6486/- to the OPs, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the OPs and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by both the parties, very minutely.
6. The complainant has alleged that Chandni, the daughter of the complainant was having Life Insurance Policy No.133156522 dated 28.07.2011, for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- which was valid upto 28.07.2025 and the premium was also paid. He has proved on record the copy of the LIC Ex.C-1, perusal of which shows that the policy was in the name of Chandni, Raj Rani and it was taken on 28.07.2011 for vesting date 28.07.2018. The complainant alleged that the payment of installment was regularly made by the deceased Chandni. Unfortunately, she expired on 18.09.2019 at Handa Neuro Hospital, Jalandhar. He has produced on record the death certificate of Chandni Ex.C-2. He has been visiting the office of the OP to get the claim of the policy of his daughter, but no claim was given by the OP and has alleged deficiency in service. The complainant has not produced on record any document to show that she (his daughter) was ever admitted in Handa Neuro Hospital, Jalandhar, nor he has produced on record the death summary nor bills issued by the doctor of the hospital and Pharmacist.
7. The contention of the OP is that no intimation of the death of Chandni was ever received by the OP. Even the column of nomination has been left blank. The life assured was minor at the time of the policy. Since, no claim was ever filed before the OP, therefore, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
8. The complainant has not produced on record any document or any email or representation from which it can be concluded that the complainant has ever made any claim before the OP or any intimation of the death of deceased Chandni was given to the OP or claim of the complainant was ever repudiated by the OP.
9. In such circumstances, the complaint of the complainant is pre-mature and accordingly, the same is disposed of with the direction that the complainant can file the claim before the OPs as per rules, terms and conditions of the policy, if is admissible, which will be decided by the OPs, if so filed within one month from the date of filing claim by the complainant, if any, failing which the OPs will be liable to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. It is further ordered that if the complainant is not satisfied with the settlement of the claim made by the OPs, then he is at liberty to file a fresh complaint. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
11.08.2023 Member President
