Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 527.
Instituted on : 26.10.2018.
Decided on : 15.11.2019.
Ramita (age 25 years) wd/o Late Umesh Kumar R/o House No.27, Lal bahadur Shastri Nagar, Rohtak(Haryana).
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd., CRM Department, Northern zone Office, 12th floor, Jeevan Bharti Bldg, 124 Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001, Service to be effected through Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd., Rohtak, Main Subhash Road, Opp. All India Radio Station, Rohtak(Haryana).
- Life Insurance Corporation of India, (LIC) Branch: R.K.Towers, Delhi bypass road, near Jannat Banquet Hal, Rohtak(Haryana).
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.G.K.Lalit Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Krishan Kumar, Advocate for opposite party No.1 & 2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that husband of the complainant namely Umesh Kumar obtained two Life Insurance policies bearing no.179277108 and 179277109, both policies commenced from 15.07.2015 and having maturity date 15.07.2040 from respondent no.2, each for a sum of Rs.1 lakh to the nominee, in case of death of the person insured. Thus insured amount was Rs.200000/-. The husband of the complainant met with a railway accident on 26.11.2015 at railway crossing line at Village Singhpura, District Rohtak and died on the spot. In this accident, the body of the deceased was recovered by the G.R.P., Rohtak and the death report bearing no.110 dated 26.11.2015 was prepared by the G.R.P.Rohtak. After the death of her husband, complainant being the nominee of her husband, approached the respondents to get the insurance claim. Complainant deposited the claim form and other documents with the respondents to get the sum insured but the opposite parties rejected the claim of the complainant on unknown grounds. Complainant also filed appeal against the repudiation of claim but the claim of the complainant has not been settled by the respondents till date. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.200000/- for two policies alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that the respondent corporation issued two policies bearing no.179277108 and 179277109 on the life of Shri Umesh Kumar with date of commencement 15.07.2015 under plan and term: 821-25-20, Mode-Yearly. Both these policies have run only for four months from FPR. Suicide clause is operative in both policies and life assured had committed suicide by train. As per police Inquest report from GRP Rohtak dated 26.11.2015, life assured had committed suicide by train, so the competent authority has repudiated the claim of the complainant legally and as per terms and conditions of the policy on dated 08.02.2016. The complainant is thus not entitled for any claim under the terms and conditions of the above mentioned policy. There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed his evidence on dated 14.11.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.RW1 to Ex.RW8 and closed his evidence on dated 07.08.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. As per respondents, the deceased had committed suicide and he is not entitled for any claim amount as per terms and conditions of the policy. As per cause 7(Suicide) of the policy mentioned in Ex.RW1, it is submitted that : “If the Life Assured(whether sane or insane) commits suicide at any time within 12 months from the date of commencement of risk, the Corporation will not entertain any claim under this policy except to the extent of 80% of the premiums paid excluding any taxes, extra premium and rider premiums, if any, provided the policy is in force”. We have perused all the relevant documents. The complainant has placed on record the copy of post mortem report as Ex.C10., copy of death report No.25.25(1)(kh) Ex.C11 issued by the National Railway Police, P.S.Rohtak, District Rohtak. As per PMR Ex.C10, it has been specifically mentioned that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him in the rail accident, This fact has been mentioned on the first page of P.M.R. Meaning thereby, as per police officials, the deceased died due to injuries received by him in accident. The main contention of the respondent officials was on document Ex.C11/RW4. In this document in column No.20, the reason of death has been mentioned as : “It seems to be suicide before the rail”. In column no.21, the information is that: “Whether any circumstances or any rumour has been came into knowledge during investigation, that the deceased has committed suicide” and answer to this question has been replied by the officials is “No”. Meaning thereby in column no.20, the investigation agency itself is not clear that whether this death is suicide or an accident and in next para, they have specifically mentioned that they have not heard any rumour or any circumstances to came into the conclusion that deceased has committed suicide. Moreover, the report under section 175Cr.P.C. has not been placed on record and no other document has been placed on record by the respondent to prove that deceased committed suicide.
6. Hence after going through the evidence placed on record and hearing the parties, we came to the conclusion that deceased has not committed suicide. Hence the respondents are liable to pay the claim amount of both the policies bearing no.179277108 and 179277109 to the complainant. As such, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay the claim amount of Rs.200000/-(Rupees two lacs only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.26.10.2018 and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the L.Rs of deceased. However, the case has been filed by the wife of complainant before this forum and other L.Rs have not been mentioned by the complainant in her complain or in the affidavit. Moreover, no such document has been placed on record by the complainant that she is the sole legal heir of the deceased. As such, it is directed that complainant shall submit the names of L.Rs(major or minor) of the deceased Umesh Kumar before the opposite parties within 15 days and opposite parties shall pay the alleged amount to the L.Rs of the deceased in equal share within 15 days. It is also made clear that amount after disbursement on account of minors(if any), should be deposited in any nationalized bank till their majority and will be paid to them on attaining the age of majority. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
8. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
15.11.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
