DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 188 of 10-08-2009<br /> Decided on : 11-11-2009 <br /> <br /> Pushpa Rani aged about 54 years widow of Surinder Kumar R/o Kamlu Road, Opposite Patwar Khana, Raman Mandi, District Bathinda.<br /> <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> Life Insurance Corporation of India,Bibi Wala Road, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager<br /> ... Opposite party<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Sh. George, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Naresh Garg, counsel for the complainant.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for the opposite party. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> GEORGE, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against the opposite party with the allegation that her husband namely Sh. Surinder Kumar Gupta purchased Insurance policy No. 161353613 on 28-03-2001 for an amount of Rs. 70,000/- under table 122-08 against premium of Rs. 9,764/- per annum and the complainant was the nominee under the said policy. In February, 2008, all of a sudden her husband suffered from Onset headache with loss of consciousness and he was immediately admitted at Bharat Brain Hospital, Bathinda and thereafter at PGI, Chandigarh. Due to seriousness of her husband, he was shifted to Indraparastha Apollo Hospital, Delhi where he ultimately died on 24-02-2008 due to subarachnoid haemorrhage (Grade V). After the death of her husband, she submitted all the original relevant papers/documents with the opposite party and requested him to pay claim on account of death of Surinder Kumar Gupta. In May, 2008, the opposite party paid Rs. 26,601/- to the complainant as part payment on account of death of her husband/policy holder. Before issuing the cheque for part payment, the opposite party obtained her signatures on various blank papers with the assurance that full claim amount will be paid to her within 2-3 months, but the amount has been withheld without assigning any reason. She and her son visited the opposite party many a times and requested him to expedite her claim, but to no effect. She asserts that due to non-payment of full benefits of the said policy (i.e. Rs. 70,000/- + Accrued Bonus and interest) to her by the opposite party in time, she has suffered mental tension, agony, pains and harassment. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to the opposite party to pay her the entire claim i.e. Rs. 70,000/- (minus Rs, 26,601/-) alongwith bonus, interest and benefits and interest @18% P.A. from the date of death of policy holder till the date of payment and also pay her compensation amounting to Rs. 15,000/- for mental tension and agony besides litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-.<br /> 2. The opposite party filed reply taking legal objections that complainant has no cause of action; he has not approached this Forum with clean hands and the complaint is frivolous.<br /> On merits, it has been submitted that policy in question is a pension plan and not a medical reimbursement Insurance Policy. The office file of the present case has been misplaced and could not be traced despite best efforts. The due amount i.e. the commuted value has been paid to the complainant vide cheque dated 25-04-2008 for Rs. 26,688/- and the remaining amount is payable in installments. As per terms of the policy, after the payment of commuted value, the pension is to be released to the nominee by the Pension Cell, Zonal Office, New Delhi and for the release of pension payments, the Pension Cell of the opposite party has called for a copy of school certificate of complainant to ensure her exact date of birth. It has been pleaded that the complainant has not submitted proof of her date of birth and she will be paid pension on submitting the same. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the same.<br /> 3. In support of her averments contained in the complaint, the complainant has produced in evidence her affidavit Ex. C-1, photocopy of death certificate Ex. C-2, photocopy of letter dated 4.5.09 alongwith postal receipt Ex. C-3, photocopy of Form No. 'A' alongwith postal receipt Ex. C-4, photocopy of DD dated 25-07-09 Ex. C-5, another affidavit of complainant Ex. C-6, affidavit of Sh. Satish Kumar Ex. C-7, photocopy of letter dated 21.8.09 Ex. C-8 and photocopy of DMC of complainant Ex. C-9.<br /> 4. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, the opposite party has tendered in evidence photocopy of office order Ex. R-1, photocopies of letters dated 31-08-09, 5-10-09 & 21-08-09 Ex. R-2 to Ex. R-4 respectively, certificate dated 5.9.09 Ex. R-5 and affidavit of Sh. Sanjay Bhargav, Senior Branch Manager Ex. R-6.<br /> 5. We have taken into consideration the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusing the record of the case, it appears that the complainant is the wife of deceased Surinder Kumar Gupta who purchased Insurance policy No. 161353613 on 28-03-2001 for an amount of Rs. 70,000/- and paid all installments of premium till his death. Sh. Surinder Kumar Gupta suddenly died on 24th February, 2008 due to subarachnoid haemorrhage (Grade V) at Indraparastha Apollo Hospital, Delhi. As per affidavit of the complainant/wife of deceased and Sh. Satish Kumar son of the complainant Ex. C-6 and Ex. C-7 respectively all the relevant papers in respect of Insurance claim/pension were submitted in time with the opposite party including date of birth certificate of the nominee Pusha Rani/complainant and thereafter both the deponents approached several times to the office of the opposite party but they did not give any satisfactory reply and therefore, they had to file the present complaint. <br /> 6. The opposite party half heartedly contested the allegations in the ceremonial way raising here and there frivolous objections. However in para No. 6 of the reply, it has been admitted that due amount i.e. the commuted value has been paid to the complainant vide cheque dated 25-04-2008 for Rs. 26,688/- and as per the terms of the policy, after payment of commuted value, the pension is to be released to the nominee by the Pension Cell, Zonal Office, New Delhi. For the release of the pension payment, Pension Cell of the opposite party has called for a copy of school certificate of complainant to ensure her exact date of birth. The complainant has not submitted proof of her date of birth and the remaining amount in the form of pension will be released to the complainant on submitting the proof of age.<br /> 7. The opposite party has brought on record two letters dated 5-10-09 and 21-08-09 Ex. R-3 & Ex. R-4 respectively where the complainant has been asked to submit a copy of school certificate to ensure her exact date of birth. Before the issuance of these letters, the opposite party at no stage asked the complainant to submit a copy of her school certificate for verification of her exact date of birth. <br /> 8. The perusal of record reveals that deceased Surinder Kumar Gupta, policy holder, died on 24th February, 2008 and commuted value of payment due to complainant amounting to Rs. 26,688/- was paid by the opposite party in the month of April, 2008 and thereafter, the opposite party almost closed down the pension case of the complainant and even the file containing the documents of the complainant's husband Insurance Policy was lost as is evident from documents brought on record by the opposite party Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-3. The opposite party was expected to deal with the Insurance claim/payment of pension to the complainant within a reasonable time after the death of policy holder Sh. Surinder Kumar Gupta. It appears that the opposite party has not taken any care to clear the pension case of the complainant within reasonable time and for the first time vide letter dated 21-08-09 asked the complainant for a copy of her school certificate to ensure her exact date of birth. Despite the fact that complainant at the time of closing her evidence in the present complaint, brought on record her School Leaving Certificate Ex. C-9 and the copy of the same was also supplied to the counsel for the opposite party in the Forum itself on 30th September, 2009, even then, the opposite party without taking notice of the same, issued letter dated 05-10-2009 Ex. R-3 again, asking her to submit her Date of Birth certificate. This shows callous attitude adopted by the opposite party in delaying the finalize of the pension case of the complainant for more than 1-1/2 year on one or the other flimsy ground.<br /> 9. Keeping in view all the facts, circumstances and the record of the case, we accept the complaint and direct the opposite party to release the pension of the complainant under pension plan policy in question. It appears from the record that pension case of the complainant has not been settled due to callous attitude of the opposite party and therefore, the complainant has been put to unnecessary mental tension, harassment and inconvenience for which, she is definitely entitled for a reasonable and adequate amount of compensation. Having regard the manner in which the delay has been caused in releasing the pension of the complainant, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for an exemplary compensation which we assess, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, to the tune of Rs. 35,000/-. The complainant is also entitled for this forced litigation expenses which we assess to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-.<br /> 10. Since the delay has been caused in settling the claim of a widow without any sense of human touch. It is a fit case where the amount referred to above with regard to payment of compensation as well as litigation expenses should be borne by the erring official i.e. Sh. Sanjay Bhargava, Senior Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Office, Bibi Wala Road, Bathinda. In this view of the matter we get support from the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled Lucknow Development AuthorityVs. M K Gupta AIR 1994 Supreme Court 787 wherein it has been held that where there is misconduct by Public Officer, the damages are to be recovered from erring official. <br /> The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. <br /> The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be indexed and consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 11-11-2009 <br /> (George)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul) Member