Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/313

Nirmal Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC - Opp.Party(s)

Parmjeet Singh

07 Jan 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :      313

Date of Institution:  18.09.2017

Date of Decision :    7.01.2019

 

Nirmal Kaur, aged 45 years wife of Kala Ram (mother of deceased Mangat Ram), r/o Mohalla Mahikhana, Faridkot.

                                                                                      ...Complainant

Versus

1. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Ferozepur Road, Faridkot.
2. M.D. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jiwan Parkash, Model Town Road, Jallandhar.

                                                                        .............OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Paramjit Singh, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

              Sh Lakhwinder Singh, Ld Counsel for OPs.

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                                Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against  OPs seeking directions to OPs to make claim payment of Rs. 4,40,000/- alongwith interest alongwith interest and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and harassment and litigation expenses.

2                                                        Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that Mangat Ram deceased son of complainant obtained one LIC Money Back Plan bearing Policy No.134034144 dated 15.08.2015 for a sum of Rs.2,20,000/-on quarterly instalment of Rs.4,298/- from OP-1 on their assurance that on maturing of policy, as sum of Rs.2,20,000/-would be paid to him and in case of death of insured, double amount i.e Rs.4,40,000/-would be paid to the nominee as per terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. It is submitted that deceased son of complainant was a truck driver who used to go to various states and return home after about months. He paid his instalments regularly. It is further submitted that when first instalment of year 2017 was due, her son had gone to Kolkata and he could not deposit the same in time, but he was ready to deposit the same on his return. But unfortunately, son of complainant while coming home from Kolkata died in an accident on 12.04.2017 and after his cremation, his mother/complainant approached OPs and intimated them regarding his death and also showed their willingness to deposit the instalment due and also requested them to process and pay the insurance claim on account of death of her son. Complainant completed all the formalities and also handed over the death certificate of her deceased son to OPs but despite completion of all formalities and repeated requests, OPs have paid no heed to hear her grievance. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice and has caused harassment and mental tension to complainant. Complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation alongwith litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                                                         The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 25.09.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                              On receipt of the notice, the OP filed written statement wherein took preliminary objections that as per terms and conditions of the policy in question, complainant is not entitled to any claim as policy is in lapsed condition. Policy has run for only one year and six months and thus, nothing is payable to complainant on account of death of insured. However, on merits, OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that claim alongwith accident benefits is payable only if the policy is in force, but in instant case, policy was lapsed and was not in force at the time of accident. Insured son of complainant has not paid the full premiums regularly and therefore, due to non payment of premiums, it was lapsed on 14.02.2017. It is asserted that premium cannot be deposited after the death of insured. It is also denied that answering OPs ever assured complainant of payment of Rs.4,40,000/-. All the other allegations of complainant are wrong and incorrect and OPs. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OPs. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                                                        Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-12 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                                         In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Jagdeep Sharma as Ex OP-1  and documents Ex OP-2 to 3 and then, evidence of OPs was closed by order of this Forum.

7                                                        We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have carefully gone through evidence and documents placed on record by respective parties.

8                                                         Ld Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that deceased son of complainant obtained one LIC Money Back Plan bearing Policy dated 15.08.2015 for a sum of Rs.2,20,000/-on quarterly instalment of Rs.4,298/- from OP-1 on their assurance that on maturity, as sum of Rs.2,20,000/-would be paid to him and in case of death of insured, double amount i.e Rs.4,40,000/-would be paid to the nominee as per terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Deceased son of complainant was a truck driver who used to go to various states and return home after about months. He paid his instalments regularly. When first instalment of year 2017 was due, her son had gone to Kolkata and he could not deposit the same in time, but he was ready to deposit the same on his return. But unfortunately, while coming home from Kolkata, her son died in an accident on 12.04.2017 and thereafter, complainant intimated them regarding his death and also showed their willingness to deposit the instalment due and also requested them to process and pay the insurance claim on account of death of her son. Though complainant completed all the formalities and also handed over the death certificate of her deceased son to OPs but despite completion of all formalities and repeated requests, OPs have paid no paid a single penny. It amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment and mental agony to her. She has prayed for accepting the present complaint.

9                                              To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OPs asserted that on the date of death of Mangat Ram, deceased son of complainant, the policy in question was lying in lapsed mode and thus as per terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, Accident Claim Benefit is not payable under the policy. OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect, but admitted before the Forum that deceased was insured with them. It is further arged that as per terms and conditions of the policy in question, complainant is not entitled to any claim as policy is in lapsed condition. Policy has run for only one year and six months and thus, nothing is payable to complainant on account of death of insured. It is further averred that claim alongwith accident benefits is payable only if the policy is in force, but in instant case, policy was lapsed and was not in force at the time of accident. Insured son of complainant has not paid the full premiums regularly and therefore, due to non payment of premiums, it was lapsed on 14.02.2017. Premium cannot be got deposited after the death of insured. It is also denied that answering OPs ever assured complainant of payment of Rs.4,40,000/-. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OPs. All the other allegations are refuted with a prayer to dismiss the complaint with costs.

10                         The case of the complainant is that son of complainant purchased an insured policy for Rs. 2,20,000/-, who died in an accident and after his death, complainant being nominee duly completed all formalities and submitted requisite documents with them to obtain insurance claim. It is admitted by complainant herself in the pleadings of complaint that her son did not deposit the first premium in year 2017 but was ready to deposit the same. He was ready to pay the premium, but meanwhile, her son Mangat Ram died while coming home from Kolkata and he could not deposit the premium amount with OPs. After his death complainant completed intimated the OPs and also submitted requisite documents alongwith death certificate of her son for obtaining the claim under the policy and also showed their willingness to further deposit the premium which her son could not deposit when he was alive. But despite repeated requests, OPs did not got deposit the premium and paid nothing to complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and caused harassment to her. On the other hand, plea taken by Ops is that policy purchased by deceased son of complainant did not run for more than one year and six months and since 14.02.2017, it was in lapsed conditions. As per terms and conditions of the policy, premium can not be got deposited after the death of insured and after death policy cannot be revived. As per OPs no accident claim is admissible under the policy in question and complainant is not entitled for claim sought. Ops have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect.

11                                   From the careful observation of the evidence and documents placed on record and keeping in view the arguments advanced by parties, this Forum is of considered opinion that complainant is not entitled for any claim under the policy in question, which was in lapsed conditions. During the period of his survival, deceased son of complainant did not bother to continue the policy by making regular payment of premiums and due to non payment of premiums, policy went in lapsed mode and  now, after his death, his mother/complainant cannot force the OPs to make payment of insurance claim on account of accidental death of son though she has herself admitted in the complaint that her son did not pay the premiums. Therefore, it is made out there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and we do not find any merit in present complaint. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as  per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum,

Dated : 7.01.2019

 

                                      Member                        President

                                                (Param Pal Kaur)           (Ajit Aggarwal)