BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.289 of 2013

DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 07.05.2013

DATE OF ORDER: -20.04.2016

Umed Singh son of Kishan Lal, resident of Landuda via Pilani, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhnu (Rajasthan).

        ……………Complainant.

VERSUS

Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.

………….. Opposite Party.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

BEFORE :-  Shri Rajesh Jindal, President

                   Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member

Present: - Shri Ashok Kumar, Advocate for complainant.

      Shri V.P. Dalal, Advocate, for the OP.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

                    The  case of the complainant in brief, is that his wife Smt. Maya Kaur (now deceased) had obtained insurance policy in her name covering the risk for a sum of Rs.1,00000/- from opposite party and paying the monthly installment of Rs. 6714/-  The complainant was nominated as nominee in the above said policy. Unfortunately, on 30.05.2011 the wife of the complainant died due to bite by the snake and the intimation was given to OP.  It is alleged that he visited many times to the office of the opposite party regarding this policy claim but the OP did not gave any compensation.  The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondent, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondent and as such he had to file the present complaint.

2.                 On appearance, OP filed written statement and took preliminary objections and denied the allegations of the complainant. It is submitted that policy No. 172765736 has been issued on the life of Smt. Maya Kaur with date of commencement 15.02.2002, Plan and Term 75-20, mode yearly installment, premium Rs. 6714/- and sum assured Rs. 1,00,000/-  It is submitted that answering respondent made the payment of death claim, sum assured of Rs. 1,23,042/- vide cheque No. 0228240 dated 16.09.2011.  It is submitted that the complainant/nominee has never submitted any proof of accidental death of deceased life assured.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has placed on record Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-7 alongwith supporting affidavit.

4.                In reply thereto, the counsel for OP has placed on record Annexure R1 to Annexure R-5 alongwith supporting affidavit.

5.                 We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6.                 Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He is submitted that the wife of the complainant died due to snake bite on 30.05.2011.  He submitted that the Ops are liable to give the double accident benefit under the policy in question to the complainant. 

7.                 Learned counsel for the opposite party reiterated the contents of his reply.  He submitted that the insurance amount of Rs. 1,23,042/- has been paid to the complainant on 16.09.2011.  The complainant never submitted any proof of snake bite of the deceased.  To take the benefit, the complainant is supposed to submit the copy of FIR, Post Mortem Report, Hospital Treatment Record, copy of panchanama or any other document to prove that the deceased died due to snake bite.

8.                 The counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention to Annexure C7 it is a blank OPD slip of CHC Loharu except the name of the deceased nothing has been mentioned in the OPD slip by any doctor.  Thus this slip is not much of help to the complainant.  The counsel for the complainant submitted that a certificate dated 06.06.2011 Annexure C-3 was issued by the Gram Panchayat of the village to prove that the deceased Smt. Maya Kaur wife of the complainant died due to snake bite.  The counsel for the OP disputed the trustworthiness of this certificate Annexure C-3.  Admittedly, no cogent evidence has been adduced by the complainant in support of his contention that the wife of the complainant died due to snake bite.  No affidavit of the Sarpanch of the village has been produced by the complainant to support the certificate of Gram Panchayat dated 06.06.2011 Annexure C-3.  Considering the facts of the case, we are of the view that the complainant has failed to prove that his wife died due to snake bite.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to accident benefit under the policy in question. From the above discussion, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 20-04-2016.                                         

      (Rajesh Jindal)

                                                                                President,     

                                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                      Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

(Ansuya Bishoni),                        

      Member.