Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/17/1001

SMT.MANJUSHRI - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC - Opp.Party(s)

SH.AJAY DUBEY

11 Jul 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1001 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 12.05.2017 passed in C.C.No.117/2014 by District Commission, Ratlam)

 

SMT.MANJUSHRI

W/O LATE SHRI KAMALRAJ CORNELIOUS,

EMPLOYEE, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION

OF INDIA, BRANCH NO.1, KATJU NAGAR,

RATLAM (M.P.)                                                                                          ….           APPELLANT.

 

                       Versus

 

1. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,

    THROUGH SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

    DIVISION OFFICE, 19, MAHATMA GANDHI MARG,

    INDORE (M.P.)

 

2. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,

    THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER,

    60-B, JEEWAN SHIKHA, HOSHANGABAD ROAD,

    POST BOX NO.28, BHOPAL (M.P.)

 

3. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,

    THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER,

    BRANCH NO.1, KATJU NAGAR, RATLAM (M.P.)

 

4. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,

    THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER,

    BRANCH-C.A.B, 44, KATJU NAGAR,

    RATLAM (M.P.)                                                                                            ….           RESPONDENTS.                                

                                 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :  PRESIDENT

           HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :  MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri Dharmendra Rathore, learned counsel for the respondents.

                  

                                                  O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 11.07.2023)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

           

                   This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’) is directed against the order dated 12.05.2017 passed by

-2-

the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ratlam (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.117/2014, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by her.

2.                Briefly put, facts of the case are that the appellant’s late husband Kamalraj Cornelious (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased-insured’), being an employee of the opposite party-Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘LIC’) was insured under Group Insurance Scheme. The policy holder vide letter dated 10.11.2009 gave consent for making appellant as his nominee. On 29.04.2013, the deceased-insured died and thereafter the appellant, being nominee, approached the LIC regarding payment of insurance claim amount under the Group Insurance Scheme. It is alleged by her that there was inordinate delay in realization of the claim amount.  Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on part of LIC, she approached the District Commission, in order to seek relief.

3.                The LIC in its reply before the District Commission stated that the appellant was required to submit the claim form in the concerned branch office, where the deceased-insured served last but however, the appellant sent a letter dated 25.03.2014 to the Manager (Office Services) Divisional Office, Indore. Considering the said letter as claim request, the LIC promptly initiated processing of claim and Rs.7,00,000/- as claim amount was deposited in her account on 18.10.2014.  The appellant also signed a

-3-

discharge letter dated 23.09.2014 in this regard. The delay which had occurred, was on the appellant’s part only. There has been no deficiency in service on LIC’s part.

4.                The District Commission dismissed the complaint holding that it is not established that the LIC deliberately caused delay in payment of claim amount.

5.                Heard. Perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the appellant argued that after the death of her husband on 29.04.2013, the LIC made payment of claim amount on 18.10.2014, which was paid after inordinate delay. The appellant had to suffer immensely because of delay in payment of claim amount. The appellant had to send a letter dated 25.03.2014 and thereafter a notice was also sent to the LIC, but the LIC made payment of claim amount after institution of the complaint before the District Commission. He argued that the appellant was paid only the claim amount but she deserved to be compensated for delay caused in payment of claim amount and therefore the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.

7.                Learned counsel for the LIC argued that the appellant was supposed to approach the concerned branch office but on the other hand she sent a letter dated 25.03.2014 to Manager (OS) Divisional Office of LIC, Indore. Considering her letter as claim request, the LIC without any delay,

-4-

procured the relevant documents and adopting the sympathetic approach quickly released the claim amount to her on 18.10.2014. The delay is only procedural and the fact is that the appellant herself has been responsible for the delay. He therefore argued that the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint.

8.                From perusal of letter dated 25.03.2014 it appears that the appellant vide said letter had replied to certain queries of the LIC and also had annexed certain documents along with.  This shows that she had not yet discharged off her share of obligation till the said date.  The LIC has maintained throughout that she directly approached the Manager (OS) Divisional Office, Indore whereas she was supposed to approach the concerned branch. Admittedly, the LIC had made payment of claim amount to her.  Though the appellant has alleged that she had approached the LIC and her grievance was not redressed but we find that all correspondences, available in record are after the letter dated 25.03.2014 and there is nothing substantiating on record to support her allegations. On this basis we infer that the District Commission has rightly held that delay in payment of claim amount by the LIC, does not appear to be deliberate.

9.                In view of the foregoing discussion, we conclude that the District Commission has committed no error, while passing the impugned order and in dismissing the complaint and the impugned order is hereby upheld.

-5-

10.              As a result, the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

 

 

            (JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR)              (DR. MONIKA MALIK)                     

                                PRESIDENT                                            MEMBER