Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/237/2013

Kamlesh Rani W/o.Chhater Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC - Opp.Party(s)

None for complainant

15 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR.

        

                                                                   Complaint No. 237 of 2013.

                                                                   Date of institution: 21.03.2013

                                                                   Date of decision: 15.09.2017.

 

 

Kamlesh Rani wife of Late Shri Chhattar Pal, Resident of village Jai Singh Ka Majra, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. 

 

                                                                                                          ...Complainant                             

                                                                                     

                             Versus

1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jeevan Jyoti Building, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Ambala Cantt, through its Branch Manager.

 

2. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Karnal Division, Divisional Office, Karnal through its Divisional Manager.

 

3. The Zonal Manager, LIC of India, Jeevan Bharati, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi.

 

                                                                                                       ...Respondents

 

 

BEFORE    SH. SATPAL, PRESIDENT

                   SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                   SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.          

 

 

Present:       None for complainant

                    Shri NS Sinhmar, Advocate for OPs.

 

 

ORDER (SATPAL, PRESIDENT)

 

 

1.                The complainant Kamlesh Rani has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date (hereinafter respondents will be referred as OPs). 

2.                Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that Chhattar Pal deceased was the husband of the complainant and during his life time, he had obtained two Life Insurance Policies for a sum of Rs.1 lac each for a period of 20 years on his life vide Insurance Policies No.172899755 and 174754920 with date of commencement as 28.12.2001 and 28.12.2005 respectively. In this way, Shri Chhattar Pal had hired the services of the OPs against payment of premium. Late Shri Chhattar Pal was paying the premium of the Insurance policy regularly but unfortunately he died on 01.01.2008 in road side accident. A claim was lodged with the OPs for payment of compensation in respect of the death of Shri Chhattar Pal, as admissible under the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policies according to which in case of death of assured, double the amount of policy was to be paid to the legal heirs. Thereafter, claim form with documents were submitted. But, the claim of the complainant was not settled by the Ops. The complainant requested the OPs to settle her claim but they continued to put off the matter. The complainant visited the office of the OPs several times but they did not gave any satisfactory reply to the complainant nor paid the claim amount as per terms of the insurance policies mentioned above. The complainant being the legal heirs of deceased is entitled to double the amount of the insured amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in respect of the insurance policies along with the bonus and others dues declared from time to time by the OPs and along with interest, whereas the OPs have paid nothing to her. The complainant has lost the precious life of her husband, who was only bread earner of the family and thereby the complainant has suffered loss of source of income, love and affection of her husband. The OPs are guilty of deficient and negligent services to the complainant consumer as they have failed to follow the terms and conditions as laid down in the LIC Policies. The complainant has suffered a lot of mental agony, harassment as well as economic loss for which the complainant is entitled to Rs.50,000/- as compensation. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement taking some preliminary objections such as complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops without any cause of action, so the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed on this ground. Here it is pertinent to mention that the Branch Office Ambala Cantt of the OPs have received an intimation of death claim under both the bonds and other claim form. The claim of the complainant was time barred under both the policies as intimation of death was received in the Branch Office, Ambala Cantt. after a period of 4 years 6 months and 29 days from the date of death but the claim of the complainant was sent by the Branch Office, Ambala Cantt to the Divisional office for decision. The competent authority has admitted the liability for basic sum assured under policy No.174754920 and for paid up value under the policy No.172899755 on ex gratia by condoning the delay as per policy conditions and the claimant was directed to fulfill the requirements for getting the benefit of the policies but the complainant has not fulfilled all the requirements till date for settlement of her claim. It is further submitted that on the date of death of Shri Chhatar Pal (DLA), both the policies were in lapsed condition with FUP 12/2007 and 12/2006 respectively. Further, the Branch Office, Ambala Cantt. had sent the discharge form along with NEFT form to the complainant on 06.04.2013 with the request to sent back the form duly completed in all respects, so that the claim amount may be released but till date branch office Ambala Cantt. has not received the same and payment of death claim is pending due to the fault of complainant. On merit it is admitted to the extent that policies bearing Nos. 174754920 and 172899755 were issued to Shri Chhatar Pal (DLA) for SA of Rs.1,00,000/-  each with date of commencement 28.12.2005 and 28.12.2001, DT of Risk: 14.03.2006 and 31.03.2002, T & T  174-16-16 and 75-20-20 installed premium of Rs.2546 and 3164 payable half yearly respectively in both the polices. The competent Authority has admitted the liability for basic sum assured under the policy No.174754920 and for paid up value under Policy 172899755 on ex gratia basis by condoning the delay as per policy conditions. The payment of death claim of the complainant is pending for want of requirement form the complainant and the complainant has not fulfilled all the requirements till date for the settlement of her claim. Rest contents of the complaint were denied being wrong and incorrect and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In support of her case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CX and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence documents as Annexure R1 to R16 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                Case called several time since morning but none has appeared on behalf of complainant. The present case pertains to the year 2013, so the case is decided on merit after hearing the learned counsel for the OPs.

7.                The version of the complaint is that her husband had two life insurance policies for a sum assured of Rs.1 lac each. Unfortunately,  her husband died on 01.01.2008 in a road accident but the claim was not settled by the OPs and as such the complainant is entitled for the claim amount along with accidental benefit and prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

8.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs argued that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as the Deceased Life Assured (DLA) had purchased the policies in question from Ambala Branch and claim form was also submitted by the complainant at Branch Office, Ambala. As per Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date, this Forum got no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed only on this ground alone. The counsel for the Ops further argued that the life assured had died on 01.01.2008 whereas the complainant has submitted the claim documents on 30.07.2012  i.e. after a period of 4 years 6 months 29 days after the death of DLA. It is further argued that at the time of death of the DLA the policies were in lapsed mode. However, the higher authority of the company condoned the delay and allowed ex gratia amount to the tune of Rs.23,900/- under policy No.172899755 and Rs.99,900/- under the policy 174754920 on submitting of discharge voucher and NEFT form but the complainant had failed to submit the aforesaid documents to the company and the payment of claim amount is pending due the part of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.                After hearing the learned counsel for the OPs and going through the record there are two questions which arise before us for consideration as to whether this Forum got territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint or not? and whether the complainant is entitled for the claim amount with bonus and accidental benefit.?

          Regarding first question, it is admitted fact that the policies in question were issued by the Branch Office, Ambala and the claim forms were also submitted by the complainant for settlement of the claim at Ambala. We are of the view that now-a-days all the premiums can be deposited in all branch offices of LIC situated in India and in Yamuna Nagar district the OPs have two branches and as such the OPs are working for gain then this forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint, so in view of the  discussion above, we are of the opinion that this Forum got territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.

          Regarding second question as to whether the complainant is entitled for the claim amount with bonus and accidental benefits, we have perused the  record and as per record, the complainant’s husband was having two insurance policies bearing no.172 899755 with date of           commencement as  28.12.2001 and 174754920 with date of commencement as 28.12.2005 for a sum assured of Rs.1 lac each. We have perused Annexure R-13 which is the premium history of the policy bearing No.172899755 which clearly shows that the deceased Life insured had deposited last premium on 21.12.2006 as such the DLA had failed to deposit the next premium and as such the policy in question was lapsed. As per terms and conditions No.2 and 4 of the policy, the complainant is only entitled for the paid up value of the policy in question and not the entire sum assured along with all benefits.

          Regarding the second policy bearing No.174754920, we have perused the document Annexure R-14, wherein it is crystal clear that the DLA had deposited the last premium on 28.11.2007, it shows that the DLA had failed to deposit the premium which was due on 28.12.2007 and as such the policy lapsed after 28.11.2007 whereas the aforesaid policy was in grace period. As per terms and conditions No.2 and 4 of the policy, the complainant is only entitled for the sum assured of the policy in question without accidental benefit.

10.              In view of the above said discussion we are of the considered view that both the policies of the deceased life insured were in lapsed mode on the date of his death i.e. on 01.01.2008. As such, the OPs (by condoning the delay intimation on EX GRATIA BASIS) have rightly allowed the paid up value of policy no.172899755 and basic sum assured  under the policy 174754920 to the complainant subject to submission of the discharge voucher as well as NEFT Form by the complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs. However, in the interest of justice, the OPs are directed to make the payment of paid up value under the policy bearing No.172899755 and basic sum assured under the policy 174754920 within a period of 30 days from the preparation of copy of this order. The present complaint is hereby disposed of accordingly. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in open court.                

Dated: 15.09.2017        

 

                                                                   (SATPAL)

                                                                   PRESIDENT

                                                            D.C.D.R.F.YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                             AT JAGADHRI

 

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                   (S.C.SHARMA)

MEMBER                                                     MEMBER