DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.19/12.02.2008 Decided on : 09.01.2009 Urmila W/o late Sh.Sukhdev Rai S/o Sh.Ram Karan Dass , Resident of Chauri Gali, Ward No.6, Budhlada, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.Life Insurance Corporation of India, Urban Estate No.1, Backside Telephone Exchange, SCF 80, Red Square Market, Hissar, Tehsil and District Hissar. 2.Life Insurance Corporation of India, Naraini Building, Mansa through the Branch Manager. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.Naval Goel, Advocate, counsel for the complainant. Sh.S.P.Gupta, Advocate, counsel for the opposite parties. Quorum: Sh.Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President. Smt.Urmila Widow of Sh.Sukhdev Rai, resident of Chauri Gali, Ward No.6, Budhlada, Tehsil Budhlada, District Mansa, has filed the present complaint, against Life Insurance Corporation of India and another, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the 'Act'), for release, of amount of insurance policy, secured by her husband, and grant of compensation, in the sum of Rs.20,000/-, for mental and physical harassment, suffered by her, and a sum of Rs.5,000/-, on account Contd........2 : 2 : of costs incurred by her, for filing the complaint. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as projected, in the complaint, are that on 15.12.2001, her husband, Sh. Sukhdev Rai, who has expired, on 30.4.2003, secured an insurance policy, bearing No.172608592, and paid the entire amount, of premium, in the sum of Rs.68,500/-, as mentioned, in the policy. After demise of her husband, the complainant lodged insurance claim, for release of amount of policy, but opposite parties , vide their letter dated 20.7.2005, asked her to supply certain documents, after securing them from the doctor, who treated her husband. In compliance of the said directions, the complainant, supplied those documents, to the opposite parties, but inspite of the same, they have failed, to make the payment, of claim lodged by her, to which she is entitled, in terms of the policy, as such, the complainant is 'consumer', under the opposite parties, within the ambit of its definition, given in the Act, and there is deficiency in service, on the part, of the opposite parties, because of which, complainant, has been subjected, to mental and physical agony. Hence this complaint. 3. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed written version resisting the claim, by taking preliminary objections; that complainant, has no cause of action and locus standi, to file the complaint; that complaint is not maintainable, in the present form and, has been filed, by the complainant, to harass the opposite parties, and it has become infructuous, because payment of insurance claim, in the sum of Rs.68,500/-, has been released vide cheque No.5648 dated 29.2.2008 and another amount of Rs.13,700/-, has been made, vide cheque No.10032 dated 1.7.2008 and that complainant, is not entitled, to receive any claim, as per terms and conditions of the policy, because the policy issued, in the name of her deceased husband, provides as under: a) Return of premium paid without interest if the annuitant dies two years after the date of commencement. Contd.......3 : 3 : b) Return of premium paid without interest becomes payable at the end of two years from the date of annuitant dies after one year from the date of commencement. On merits, it is admitted, that policy, in question, has been issued, in the name of the deceased husband, of the complainant and he had paid entire amount of premium, in the sum of Rs.68,500/-, on the date of issuance of policy and the policy holder, has expired on 30.4.2003, at Budhlada. It is also admitted, that complainant lodged the claim along with necessary documents. It is not denied that, in response to their letter dated 20.7.2005, the complainant, had submitted certain documents, after securing necessary information from the hospital concerned. It is reiterated that payment, has been released, to the complainant, vide cheques No.5648 and 10032 dated 29.2.2008 and 1.7.2008, in the sum of Rs.68,500/- and Rs.13,700/-, respectively, and complaint has become infructuous. It is denied, that there is any deficiency, in service, on their part, as such, the complainant, is not entitled, to any relief, prayed for, in the complaint including compensation and costs of litigation. Rest of the allegations, made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer has been made, for dismissal of the same, with costs. 4. On being called upon, by this Forum, to do so, the complainant, furnished her affidavits Ext.C-1 and Ext.C-6, and photo copies of documents Ext.C-2 to C-5, including insurance cover note issued by the opposite parties, letter dated 20.7.2005 written by them, raising demand of certain documents and proposal form. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered in evidence, copy of insurance policy Ext.OP-1, before closure of evidence on their behalf. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by the parties, carefully, with their kind assistance. 6. At the out set, learned counsel for the complainant, Sh. Naval Contd........4 : 4 : Goel, Advocate, has submitted that the complainant, has lodged the insurance claim and, has supplied the documents, demanded, by the opposite parties, in time, but they have paid the amount payable, to her against the insurance policy issued in the name of her deceased husband, only after filing of the instant complaint, as such, there is deficiency, in service, on their part and, they have no escape, but to make the payment of insurance claim, to the complainant, on account of mental and physical harassment suffered, by her and adequate amount, on account of costs incurred by her, in filing of the complaint. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon 2004(2) CPC 491 General Manager Telecom, BSNL & Ors. versus Lt.Col.M.S.Pandher, wherein excess amount charged illegally from the complainant was adjusted in subsequent bills, but after filing of the complaint. It was held by the Hon'ble State Commission, U.T.,Chandigarh, that such pleas, cannot be allowed, by the opposite parties and order passed, by the District Forum directing the opposite parties, to pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.2,000/-, for deficiency in service, was upheld. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties, Sh.S.P.Gupta, Advocate, has submitted that complaint, has become infructuous, in view of the payment released, by the opposite parties, in accordance with the terms of conditions of the policy. Learned counsel, has urged, that some delay, has taken place, on the part of the opposite parties, in releasing the payment, due to late submission of documents demanded by them from the complainant and time consumed for securing information from the hospital concerned, where deceased insured remained admitted, before his death, as such, there is no deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties, on account of which compensation may be paid, to the complainant and some amount be paid on account of costs incurred by her, for filing the instant complaint. Learned counsel, has urged that, complaint be dismissed ,with costs. Contd........5 : 5 : 8. As per the facts admitted by the parties, in their pleadings, insurance policy, in question, was secured, by the deceased husband, of the complainant, on 15.12.2001, and he paid entire amount of premium, in lump sum in the sum of Rs.68,500/-, on the date of issuance of the insurance policy. It is also not disputed, that insured, has expired on 30.4.2003 and is survived by the complainant, who being his widow, is entitled to inherit his property. As such, the complainant is 'consumer', under the opposite parties, qua the policy in question secured by her husband, against his life. 9. The parties are also not at issue, that the complainant lodged the claim, for release of the amount alongwith requisite documents, but the opposite parties, sought information from the doctor, vide letter dated 20.7.2005, concerning admission of the life insured and treatment provided to him in the hospital. The plea of the opposite parties, as submitted by their counsel, in the course of arguments, is that delay, in release of payment, has taken place, due to delay, in submission of information, by the hospital concerned, but the opposite parties, have not disclosed the month, date and year of the receipt of information. The instant complaint, has been filed, by the complainant, on 12.2.2008 in this Forum, and payment of amount under the insurance policy, has been released, as submitted in the written version, filed by the opposite parties, vide cheques dated 29.2.2008 and 1.7.2008, i.e. after the filing of the instant complaint. The opposite parties have not given, any cogent explanation, for delay in release of the claim for a period of about more than 3 years. As such, we are constrained to hold that there is certainly 'deficiency in service', on the part, of the opposite parties, so far as, release of the payment of insurance policy, after lodging of the claim, by the complainant, is concerned. 10. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has argued, that even if, there is some delay, in the payment of the insurance claim, to the Contd........6 : 6 : complainant, the opposite parties have paid additional amount of Rs.13,700/-, on account of interest for delay, vide cheque No.10032 dated 1.7.2008, although they were not entitled, to make any such payment, as per terms and conditions of the policy. 11. At this stage learned counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention, to letter dated 11.7.2008, written by the Branch Manager, of the opposite parties, to their counsel, wherein it has been mentioned, that an amount of Rs.13,700/-, has been released, vide cheque dated 1.7.2008, as payment, to the complainant, on account of bonus and not interest for delay, in making of payment, of insurance claim. The learned counsel, has argued, that as this document, has come on record, from the custody, of the opposite parties, therefore, complainant can place reliance upon the same, even if, it has not formally been tendered into evidence by the parties. 12. We do not find any merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, because, in letter dated 11.7.2008, written by the Branch Manager, of the opposite parties, to their counsel Sh.S.P.Gupta, Advocate, the amount of Rs.13,700/-, has been paid, to the complainant, vide cheque dated 1.7.2008, on account of bonus, and not on account of interest, as submitted by him. This letter has come on record from the custody of the counsel for the opposite parties. As such, reliance can be placed on the said document. by the complainant. and opposite parties cannot wriggle out of the same. The opposite parties were not expected to part with substantial amount. on account of interest, if the same was not payable. to the complainant. under the policy. or as per rules. on the subject. The payment of bonus cannot be equated with interest payable, on account of delay, in release of payment of insurance claim. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and being fortified by the ratio of judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant, we are of the considered opinion that some amount be paid to the complainant, on account of compensation, for physical and mental Contd........7 : 7 : harassment, suffered by her, due to delay, in release, of payment, against the insurance policy secured by her deceased husband, and adequate amount as costs for expenditure incurred by her, for filing the instant complaint. 13. In the light of our above discussion, we also do not find much substance, in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, that complaint has become infructuous, after release of the amount of insurance policy after the date of filing of the complaint. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, thus stands repelled. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, the instant complaint, is partly accepted and the opposite parties, are directed, to make payment of Rs.2,000/-, to the complainant, on account of compensation for physical and mental agony, suffered by her, due to delay in release of payment of claim lodged, by her against the insurance policy, in question, secured by her deceased husband. The opposite parties are also directed, to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/-, on account of costs incurred, by her for filing of the instant complaint. The above said payment be made by the opposite parties to the complainant, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 15. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 09.01.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
