Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/55/2015

Manpreet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIfe Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Sanjeev Chopra

28 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                            Consumer Complaint No.55 of 2015

                                                        Date of institution:  01.07.2015                            

                                                        Date of decision   :  28.02.2017

Manpreet Kaur Wd/o Hardeep Singh S/o Gurmit Singh R/o H.No.1893, Street No.1, Professor Colony, Sirhind, Tehsil & District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. branch opposite Bus Stand, G.T.Road, PO Box NO.15, Mandi Gobindgarh through its branch Manager.
2.  Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd., Divisional Office, Post box No.42, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its Divisional Manager.

…..Opposite parties

Complaint under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Smt. Veena Chahal, Member  

Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

 

Present :    Sh. Sanjeev Chopra, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.      

                             Sh. M.L.Singhi, Adv.Cl. for the OPs.                           

ORDER

By Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member.

                  Complainant, Manpreet Kaur Wd/o Hardeep Singh S/o Gurmit Singh R/o H.No.1893, Street No.1, Professor Colony, Sirhind, Tehsil & District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.               The husband of the complainant, namely; Hardeep Singh, had purchased LIC policy No.165095529 on 28.08.2011 from OP No.1 and premium of Rs.16072/- was to be paid half yearly against the said policy, which was paid by the husband of the complainant regularly from 28.08.2011 onwards.  Unfortunately the husband of the complainant died in a road side accident on 28.06.2013 at village Adampur, tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib and FIR No.80 dated 28.06.2013 was registered at P.S.Sirhind against one Balbir Singh, driver of the offending Bus.  After the death of her husband the complainant intimated regarding the death to the OPs by sending letters through post and also claimed the amount of insurance policy but no reply has been given by the OPs. Thereafter the complainant sent registered letter to OP No.1 through its Branch Manager again intimating the death of her husband and also requested to send the requisite claim form. But again no reply has been given by the OPs. The complainant being the nominee in the said policy as wife is entitled to the amount of policy and other benefits arising out of the said policy along with interest. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay the policy amount and other benefits and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension, agony and harassment.

3.               The complaint is contested by the OPs, who filed joint written reply. In reply to the complaint, OPs raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands; the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint and the complaint is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. As regards to the facts of the complaint the OPs stated that the husband of the complainant(DLA) had not paid the installments regularly under the policy in question. He has not deposited the premium due for 02/2013 and, as such,  the policy was in lapsed condition at the time of death of husband of the complainant. Therefore the benefits arising under the said policy were not available to the DLA or his legal heirs/nominee. It is further stated that the DLA was having five policies.  The death claim under Four policies bearing Nos. 165165273176, 165273177, 165097117 and 165277364 had been paid on 09.11.2013 through NEFT. But the fifth policy was in lapsed condition, so  no benefit was payable there under.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.               In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in  evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, true copy of policy Ex. C-2, notice Ex. C-3, postal receipts Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence.  In rebuttal the OPs tendered in evidence letters regarding payment to the complainant in Four policies Ex.OP-1 to OP-4, detail of the account number of the complainant Ex. OP-5, letter dated 03.09.2013 Ex. OP-6, copy of status report of the policy Ex. OP-7, policy Ex. OP-8, affidavit of Smt. Hem Lata, Manager, Legal Ex. OP-9 and closed the evidence.

5.               The Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the husband of the complainant had a policy with the OPs and had been paying the premium from August 2011 onwards. Unfortunately he died in a road accident in June 2013. An FIR was got registered and the OPs were duly informed about the death. The nominee/wife of the deceased had been requesting the OPs to supply the claim form and payment of claim but the claim has not been paid till date inspite of repeated requests and visits to the local office of the OPs. The complainant sent registered letter to OP No.1, through the local Branch Manager but no reply has been received. The act and conduct of the OPs thus amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. The Ld. counsel thus pleaded for the acceptance of this complaint and penalizing the OPs and also paying the claim under policy.

6.               The Ld. counsel for the OPs argued that the husband of the complainant(DLA) had not paid the installments of premium regularly. He had not deposited the premium due for 02/2013 and thus the policy was in lapsed condition at the time of death of the husband of the complainant. So benefits under the said policy were not payable to the DLA or his legal heirs/nominee. The Ld. counsel further argued that the deceased had five policies in all. The death claim under other four policies had already been paid, since they were in currency at the time of death of the husband of the complainant. The fifth policy under dispute was in lapsed condition due to non-payment of premium in 02/2013, so no benefit was payable under the said policy. The Ld. counsel pleaded for dismissal of the complaint since there was neither deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice.

7.               After hearing the ld. counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced and the oral arguments, we find that there is force in the submissions of the Ld. counsel for the OPs. The husband of the complainant had not paid the installment in 02/2013. The policy was thus in lapsed condition at the time of death of the husband of the complainant.

8.               In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint. No order as to the costs. Parties to bear their own expenses.

9.                The arguments on the complaint were heard on 14.02.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:28.02.2017                                                                 

                                                                                     (Veena Chahal)

                                                                                     Member

 

(A.B. Aggarwal)

Member