BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

C.C.No.02/2012

Dated this the 28^th day of May 2015.

R. Mathinath, S/o.Ranganath

France National

No.32, Domaine Due Chateau,

91380 Chilly Mazarin, France

Presently residing at No.420,

10^th Cross, Aravindar Nagar,

Murungapakkam, Puducherry-605 004.                                      ….       Complainant

Vs.

The Branch Manager,

Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Branch-I, New Saram, Puducherry.                                               ….     Opposite Party

BEFORE:

            THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

            PRESIDENT 

Tmt. PVR. DHANALAKSHMI, B.A.,B.L.,

           MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT            :  Party in person

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY       : Thiru.S.P.Vassudevan, Advocate.

O R  D  E  R

This is a complaint praying to direct the opposite party

1. To pay the insurance amount of Rs.1,32,750/- to the complainant alongwith interest at 18% p.a. from the date on which it becomes due
2. To pay a compensation amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to the complainant for the mental agony suffered by him, loss of income, VISA charges, Travelling expenses, Flight charges etc.
3. To pay cost of the complaint
4. To grant such other relief as this Forum deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

            The complainant's sister by name Sobanath had taken a life insurance policy vide policy No.732173508 for a sum assured of Rs.75,000/- and the said Sobanath had nominated the complainant as her nominee for claiming the insurance amount after her death.  The complainant's sister Sobanath died on 06.09.2008 and thereafter the said amount becomes due which comes to Rs.1,32,750/-.  Since he is in France National, he tried to come over to India during the month of September, 2008, but however he was not granted leave in his office. On 19.07.2010 the complainant came to Puducherry on 6months VISA and during the last week of July 2010, the complainant approached the opposite party for claiming the insurance amount.  As the original Life Insurance Certificate was not available with the complainant, he has executed an indemnity bond for the said insurance amount in favor of the opposite party and handed over the same to the opposite party on 29.10.2010. He also informed the opposite party that his VISA is about to be expired on 30.11.2010 and requested for speedy action.  The complainant waited with the fond hope that the insurance amount will be paid by the opposite party within the month of November 2010 but the opposite party did not come forward to pay the said amount.

3.         The complainant further submits that by the act of the opposite party, the complainant was forced to extend his VISA for further one year.  When he approached the opposite party during the last week of January, the opposite party gave a photocopy of letter dated 22.01.2011 therein it was stated the husband of the complainant's sister one Natarajan had moved an application for injunction against the settlement in favour of the complainant and hence the insurance amount could not be disbursed.  During the last week of September 2011, the opposite party has told the complainant that they will not give any details of injunction order, details of the case and asked the complainant to approach the court of law and get suitable direction for the release of the insurance amount.  The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.  The claim of the legal heirs will arise only in case of a person dies intestate i.e. died without leaving a will or nomination.  It is the established principles of law that once a person bequeaths his property to another through an instrument of will or nomination, the legatee or nominee alone is entitled to claim such property. Thus, the opposite party had committed culpable negligence and the act of the opposite party is not proper and justifiable which tantamount to deficiency of service. The mental agony and monetary loss suffered by the complainant in this regard cannot be compensated in terms of money. However, he restricts his claim to Rs.3,50,000/- towards compensation amount.   Hence this complaint.

4.         The reply version of the first opposite party is as follows:

            This opposite party denies all the averments contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted in the reply version.  The opposite party admits that one R.Sobanath had taken a life insurance policy on 20.09.1997 vide policy No.732173508 for a period of 12 years and nominated one R.Mathinath, the complainant herein as the nominee.  The said Sobanath was regularly paying the monthly premiums to the opposite party and the said Sobanath died on 06.09.2008.  It is further admitted that the complainant had approached the opposite party and requested for payment of the matured policy amount in favour of him.  Further, the policy bears a valid nomination, which is enforceable under section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1956.  In such circumstances, one Mr.Natarajan claiming to be a legal heir of the deceased Sobanatha sent a legal notice by stating that the said Natarajan and his three children are the legal heirs of the deceased Sobanath and requested the opposite party not to pay the policy amount to any other person.  The said Natarajan also filed a suit before the III Additional District Munsif Court, Puducherry in O.S.No.99/2011 declaring that the Natarajan and his legal heirs to receive the insurance amount payable under the aforesaid policy, also he has filed I.A.No.171/2011 in O.S.No.99/2011 for interim injunction till the disposal of the suit as against the opposite party.   In the said suit, the complainant is also arrayed as third defendant.  Due to his non-appearance the Hon'ble court set the complainant herein exparte on 13.06.2011.  In view of the aforesaid legal notice and the suit being filed as against this opposite party, the corporation did not pay the policy amount either to the legal heirs of the deceased Sobanath or the complainant herein. Hence pray to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost.

5.         On the side of the complainant, Exs.C1 to C7 marked on consent. On the side of the opposite parties,  One MRs.K.S.Sripriya, AAO has been examined as RW.1 and marked Exs.R1 to R3..

6.         Points for determination are :

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether the opposite party attributed deficiency in service?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

7.         Point No.1:

            One Sobanath availed Insurance Policy vide No732173508 for a sum of Rs.75,000/- and the said Sobanath had nominated the complainant as her nominee for claiming the insurance amount after her death.  The said Sobanath died on 06.09.2008.  Hence the complainant is the consumer as a beneficiary of the policy of opposite party.

8.         Point No.2:

            We have perused the entire records, complaint, Exs.C1 to C7, reply version, chief examination of opposite party and Exs.R1 to R3.  There is no dispute regarding the policy taken by one Sobanath vide Policy No.732173508 for a sum of Rs.75,000/- and the said Sobanath had nominated the complainant as her nominee for claiming the insurance amount after her death.  The complainant submits that his sister Sobanath had died on 06.09.2008 and thereafter the said amount becomes due which comes to Rs.1,32,750/-.  The complainant filed the death certificate of the said Sobanath as Ex.C1.  The complainant further submits that he has sent a letter to the opposite party vide Ex.C6, dated 14.10.2010 expressing his inability to produce the original life insurance certificate and the premium receipt.  The complainant executed Ex.C4 the indemnity bond dated 29.10.2010 to the opposite party.  The allegation of the complainant is that even after executing the Ex.C4 to the opposite party,  they did not come forward to settle the amount to him as nominee.  Hence the complainant prays to direct the opposite party to settle the amount and to pass an order for compensation and cost.

9.         The opposite party has admitted that a policy was taken by Sobanath and the complainant is the nominee and it is enforceable under Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1956.  The opposite party further submitted that in such circumstances one Mr.Natarajan claiming to be a legal heir of the deceased Sobanath sent a legal notice by stating that himself and his children are the legal heirs of the deceased Sobanath and requested the opposite party not to pay the policy amount to any other person.  The said Natarajan also filed a suit before the Hon'ble III Additional District Munsif, Puducherry in O.S.No.99/2011 for declaring the said Natarajan and his legal heirs to receive the insurance amount payable under the aforesaid policy and he also obtained an interim injunction in I.A.No.171/2011 in O.S.No.99/2011 till the disposal of suit.  The said suit is pending for enquiry.  In the said suit, the complainant is also arrayed as third defendant and notice has not been served on him.  Due to his non-appearance the Court set the complainant herein as set exparte on 13.06.2011.  In view of the said legal notice and the suit being filed against the opposite party, the corporation did not pay the policy amount either to the legal heirs of the Natarajan or the complainant herein.  To that effect, the opposite party has relied on Ex.R1 to R3 and Ex.C2.  The opposite party submits that in view of the order passed in I.A.No.171/2011 in O.S.No.99/2011 on the file of Hon;ble III Additional District Munsif, Puducherry, they are unable to dispose the amount to the complainant.  The opposite party further submits that there is no deficiency in service and breach of privity or contract rendered by them. 

10.       From the records and the facts of the case, it is clear that one Natarajan who claimed him as a legal heir of the deceased Sobanath filed a suit in O.S.No.99/2011 before the Hon'ble III Additional District Munsif, Puducherry to declare the plaintiff's right to receive the insurance amount payable under the policy of insurance availed by his deceased Wife Sobanath.  The plaintiff Natarajan has filed I.A.No.171/2011 in O.S.No.99/2011 to order of ad interim/temporary injunction, pending disposal of the original suit as against the first respondent i.e. the opposite party in the complaint, restraining them from disbursing the insurance amount payable under the policy.  The Hon'ble III Additional District Munsif passed an order on 01.11.2011 granting temporary injunction against the first respondent/Opposite party restraining them form disbursing the insurance amount payable under insurance policy no.732173508:123-12 under Jeevan Sanjay Plan dated 20.09.1997 or part thereof to the third respondent till the disposal of the suit. The third respondent is the complainant in the present complaint.

11.       At this juncture, the opposite party is unable to disburse the amount either to the legal representatives of the deceased or the nominee i.e. the complainant.  The opposite party has clearly expressed their inability in Ex.C2, dated 22.01.2011 to the complainant.  Being the suit is still pending before the Hon'ble III Additional District Munsif with an order of interim injunction restraining the opposite party from disbursing the insurance amount to the complainant, the opposite party is unable to disburse the amount.  Hence there is no deficiency in service or breach of contract as alleged by the complainant attributed against the opposite party.  The complainant has failed to prove his case.  The opposite party is not liable for any loss and injuries sustained by the complainant.

12        Point No.3:   

             In view of the decision arrived in point no.2, this complaint is hereby dismissed. No cost.

Dated this the 28^th day of May 2015.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS WITNESS:  Nil

OPPOSITE PARTYS WITNESS: 

RW.1              19.12.2014                K.S.Sripriya, AAO

COMPLAINANTS EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTY'S EXHIBITS:

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER