DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.242
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 22.08.2014.
DATE OF ORDER: 13.11.2018.
Smt. Maclesh @ Prem Lata widow of Sh.Dharambir son of Sh.Anil Singh, Rajput by caste, resident of Village Sanjarwas, Tehsil Ch.Dadri, District Bhiwani.
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
1. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Bhiwani, Distt. Bhiwani through its Branch Manager.
2. The Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India
Divisional, Life Delhi-II through its Zonal Manager.
……….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12/13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 1986.
BEFORE: - Hon’ble Mr.Manjit Singh Naryal, President.
Hon’ble Mr.Parmod Sharma, Member.
Hon’ble Ms.Renu Chaudhary, Member.
Present:- Sh.Ranvijay Pal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.M.L.Sardana, Advocate for OPs.
ORDER:-
In brief, the case of the complainant is that she is the widow of Dharambir Singh, who was insured by the OPs vide insurance policy No.121864548 dated 28.11.2001 of Rs.1,00,000/- and she is also the nominee of deceased Dharambir Singh. Copy of insurance policy is Annexue C2. The husband of the complainant was working as driver with Vipal Goel Company in Faridabad. On 02.10.2002 her husband went to 85 Sukhdev Vihar, with vehicle of his master and thereafter he never came back. The husband of the complainant has been searched everywhere but no clue has
/ 2 /
been found regarding his whereabouts and more than 9 years has not been heard by any known person and ultimately, the complainant has filed a Civil Suit No.357 of 2011 to the effect that complainant be declared owner-in-possession of the land and to get the amount of life insurance policy No.121864548 dated 28.11.2001 on account of civil death of her husband, which was decided on dated 21.11.2012. Copy of judgment and decree sheet is Annexure C4. The respondents did not pay even a single penny to the complainant despite the fact that she fulfilled all the formalities, as required by the respondents. The complainant has tried to get the insured amount of the said policy from pillar to post but in vain. When the respondents failed to pay any heed on the request of the complainant, then a legal notice was served upon the respondents on dated 22.5.2013 through her counsel. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, she had to suffer mental agony, disappointment and humiliation. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such she had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation and proper adjudication of the matter by this forum.
2. On appearance, OPs filed written statement and took preliminary objections and denied the allegations of the complainant. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Tribunal has also no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint. It is submitted that the as per record Policy No.121864548 stands issued in the name of one Shri Devender Kumar son of Shri R.B.Singh, resident of House No.B85/3, Joshi Colony, Mandawali, Fajalpur, Delhi and the nominee in the said policy is Smt.Sangita Devi. The said policy has neither been issued in the name of Dharambir nor the
/ 3 /
complainant is the nominee therein. Even the sum assured in the said policy is Rs.50,000/-. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. That the complainant has moved an application on 25.7.2017, for amendment in policy number, with amended complaint. In amended complaint, the complainant submitted that the husband of the complainant had got insurance policy No.121864538 from the respondents and by typographical mistake it were wrongly written as 121864548 instead of 121864538, last two digit of policy in question.
4. The respondents, on 24.8.2017 filed amended written statement of amended complaint and admitted the insurance policy was in the name of Dharambir and Smt.Maclesh is the nominee of insurer and further submitting therein that in the original complaint the version of the complainant was that her husband died on 02.10.2002 alongwith the vehicle of his employer and thereafter did not come back. In the amended complaint, the story put forth is that the husband of the complainant disappeared on 02.10.2002. The submission of the respondent is that policy No.121864538 was issued by the Branch Office 12-D and the risk commenced on 15.2.2002 with date of commencement as 28.11.2001 with half yearly mode and premium at the rate of Rs.3834/- and next half yearly premium fallen due on 28.5.2002, which was paid on 22.5.2002. Current policy status is “Lapsed without acquiring guaranteed surrender value” with first unpaid premium i.e. 28.11.2002. The
/ 4 /
respondents would have advised her to continue the payment of premium till passing of the decree by the Court presuming the death. The complainant did not continue the policy, so, the current policy status is “lapsed without guaranteed surrender value” due to discontinuation of payment of premium from 28.11.2002 (half yearly). It will not be out of place to mention here that the claim payable amount is to be calculated as per premium position as on the date of decree passed by the court. It would thus be seen that nothing is payable under the policy. Moreover, no claim was ever lodged by the complainant with the respondents. It is also the submission of the respondents that the complaint is hopelessly time barred and is liable to be dismissed as such.
5. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has placed on record Annexure-C1 to Annexure- C12 alongwith supporting affidavit Ex.CW1/A.
6. In reply thereto, the counsel for OPs has placed on record Annexure R-1, AnnexureR1/A and Annexure R-2 alongwith supporting affidavit.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint in his arguments and relying upon the documents Ann.C1 to Ann.C12.
8. Learned counsel for the opposite parties reiterated the contents of reply and relying upon the documents Annex.R1, Annexure R1/A and Annexure R2. He stated that the complaint is time barred and is liable to be dismissed.
9. We have gone through the case file thoroughly and minutely. Indisputably, the complaint was filed on dated 22.08.2014 and the husband of the complainant disappeared on 2.10.2002 and the civil suit No.357/2011 to the effect that
/ 5 /
the husband of the complainant was declared as civilian dead on 21.11.2012. Thereafter, the complainant visited and requested many times to disburse the amount of the policy in question in her favour. The complainant also served a legal notice through her counsel on dated 22.5.2013 after completing all the formalities. So, in this way, the complaint is filed well within time as prescribed under Section 24 A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for the period of two years.
10. The learned counsel for the OPs has submitted that the forum has also no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint. This argument has also no weight because as per Section 11(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provided that :
“the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or (carries on business or has a branch office or) personally works for gain.”
So, this forum has proper jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as the Branch office of OP No.1 within local territorial jurisdiction of this forum. It is also taken stand by the OPs that as per record, policy No.121864548 not issued in the name of husband of the complainant namely Dharamvir but in the amended complaint, this issue has already been cleared that this policy number as wrongly mentioned due to typographically mistake and in the amended written statement, the OPs have not disputed this fact. So, this issue pertaining to the policy number is not disputed according to this forum and the only annexure R1 and R2 have no value in the eyes of
/ 6 /
law in this complaint. The learned counsel for the OPs have also stated that the OPs have advised the complainant to continue the payment of the premium till passing the decree by the court presuming the death but after perusing of the record, it is crystal clear that there is no supportive documentary evidence to show that any notice/intimation was ever given by the OPs to the complainant in this regard.
11. We are of the considered view that it is an admitted fact that the husband of the complainant was insured by the OPs for a sum of Rs.1 lac. The question arises whether the OPs have committed any deficiency in service or not ? The sought answer is : Yes. The plea of the OPs that insured at the time of disappearance, the policy in question was in lapse condition. Moreover, the complaint has been filed beyond the period of limitation envisaged under section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In our opinion, we are of the considered view that it is bounden duty of the office of the OPs to issue notice for deposit amount of premium for further future installments but they did not do so. Moreover, the OPs have also failed to send any notice to the complainant prior to taking the decision for policy lapse. Learned counsel for the OPs has referred case law ‘Life Insurance Corporation of India and another Versus Manikappa N.Bhandari in Revision Petition No.2339 of 2010 decided on 6.8.2015 as mentioned in IV (2015) CPJ 386 (NC) at page No.132 but the facts of the case law referred by the counsel for the OPs are not similar. In the present case the husband of the complainant disappeared on 2.10.2002 before the lapse of policy, whereas in the case referred above the policy stood lapsed before death. Hence, there is a deficiency in the services of OPs and there is no fault on the part of the complainant, as such the
/ 7 /
complainant being widow, illiterate lady and has no knowledge about the policy in question, as such, she is entitled to compensation. The learned counsel for the OPs have also submitted that the current policy has been lapsed without acquiring guaranteed surrender value due to discontinuation of payment of premium from 28.11.2002. This forum after deeply going through the entire record found that the insurance policy No.121864538 Annex.C2 issued on dated 28.11.2001 in the name of Dharamvir Singh and the nominee is complainant namely Maclesh and the policy has to be lapsed on 28.11.2002 but the husband of the complainant was disappeared on 02.10.2002 due to which he could not deposit the premium but this is admitted fact of the OPs that the insurer had deposited his last premium on 22.5.2002 which was due on 28.5.2002 i.e. well within time and next premium was due on 28.11.2002 but before this date the insurer had disappeared and declared civilian dead on 21.11.2012by civil court. Moreover, the complainant stated that she had no knowledge about the insurance policy of her husband. Moreover, the civil suit was also decided on 21.11.2012 whereby husband of the complainant declared as civilian dead after 7 years of his disappearance. Thereafter, the complainant, after completing all formalities continuously bagging for the disbursement of insurance policy but the OPs intentionally not provided help to the poor and widow lady for disbursing the insurance policy of her husband, which was genuine. Even otherwise also the OPS have failed to prove that they have either sent any notice for depositing the premium amount due towards the complainant. So, the presumption must be drawn against the OPs and in favour of the complainant. In this way, the OPs have provided the deficient service to the
/8 /
complainant. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to pay Rs.1,00,000/- the maturity sum of insurance policy with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment. The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment and hardship and to pay Rs.5500/- as litigation charges to the complainant.
8. This order be complied with by the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receiving of its certified copies. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Dated: 13.11.2018.
(Renu Chaudhary) (Parmod Kumar) (Manjit Singh Naryal)
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
