IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SONITPUR AT TEZPUR
District: Sonitpur
Present: Smti A. Devee
President,
District Consumer D.R Forum,
Sonitpur, Tezpur
Smti S.Bora
Member(F)
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sonitpur
Sri P.Das
Member(Gen.)
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sonitpur
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.26/2018
1.Sri Rajib Borthakur : Complainant
S/o Late Parama Sarmah
Resident of Village No.2 Kalita Gaon
P.O:Bihaguri, P.S: Tezpur
Dist:Sonitpur, Assam-
Vs.
1.The Branch Manager : Opp party No.1
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Biswanath Chariali Branch,
P.O & P.S Biswanath,Assam
2.The Manager
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Divisional Office,C.R.M
Fancy Bazar, Guwahati
District: Kamrup(Metro) assam
Appearance:
Mr.Kishore Kumar Bordoloi,Adv. : For the Complainant
Mr.Paramananda Kakoty, Adv. : For the Opp. party
Date of argument : 11/09/2019, 03/10/19, 23/10/19
Date of Judgment : 06/11/2019
J U D G M E N T
1. The case of the complainant Sri Rajib Borthakur, in brief, is that he is the husband of life assured Barnali Goswami (since deceased). The life assured during her life time had her life secured with the opp. party at a sum assured of Rs.5,00,000/- along with Double Accidental Death Benefit, (“DAB” in short)of Rs.5,00,000/- per Policy No.486265270 of the opp. party No.1. After death of the life assured in a motor accident on 24-04-14, the complainant, as nominee under the policy, lodged his claim with all the relevant documents as per formats furnished by the opp. party including the original policy documents before the opp. party No.1. It has been alleged that after running from pillar to post for two and a half years the opp. party on 19/5/2017 released an amount of Rs.5,18,000/- including bonus. But the benefit of Rs.5,00,000/-under the DAB rider of the policy was not released. Vide letter dated 01/ 9/17 the opp. party No.1, intimated the complainant that the competent authority at Guwahati Divisional office has informed that “accident is not payable under the policy”. Finding no other alternative the complainant through his advocate Sri Kishore Kumar Bordoloi sent a notice on 06/9/17 to the opp. party No.2 demanding release of Rs.5,00,000/- under the DAB rider of the policy and also to pay 6% interest p.a on the amount. That- reminders were also subsequently sent on 15/9/17, 9/11/17 and 29/8/18 to the opp. parties but to no avail. Hence the instant complaint praying a direction to the opp. party to release the amount of Rs.500,000/- under the DAB rider of the policy with interest @ 6% p.a thereon, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- .
2. Opp. parties contested the case by filing joint written version. Contention of the opp. party in main is that the complainant is not entitled to DAB amount as no premium has been paid to the opp. party for the rider in question and has therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Complainant has examined himself as sole witness on affidavit. Opp. party has also examined one witness Sri Rajesh Das, Asstt.Administrative Officer, on affidavit. Witnesses on either side were cross-examined.
4. We have carefully gone through the materials available on record including the written argument filed on both sides and draw up the following points for determination of the dispute.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
- Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Insurance Company ?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief under the complaint?
DECISION ON THE POINTS WITH DISCUSSION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
5.Point No.i): On a very careful scrutiny of the entire materials before us on record, more particularly, the evidence of the witnesses, it is found that the matter at loggerheads revolves around the proposal form submitted by Barnali Goswami (since deceased) wife of the Complainant to have Insurance Policy covering her life. The opposite party is the custodian of
the said Proposal Form. Only after perusal of the Proposal Form filled up by the insured, one can say whether the insured applied for Double Accidental Death Benefit or not.
6. The Complainant vide Ext-4 (Legal notice issued by advocate Sri Kishore Kumar Bordoloi), Ext-5 (notice issued by the Complainant himself), Ext-5(i) (Reminder) to the opposite party stated about Proposal Form. In Ext-4 at para 5 it is stated amongst others as follows –
“Be it herein mentioned that Double Accidental Death Benefit was opted as a rider at the time of opening of the said policy bearing Policy Number 486205270 by my client’s wife namely Barnali Gswami (since deceased) and the same was ticked in the said policy papers in spite of it till date the payment of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs) of Double Accidental Death Benefit has not been received”.
7. The fact of issuance of legal notice (Ext-4) also finds its place in the complaint. The opposite party did not deny receipt of Ext-4. That apart,case record reveals that vide petition No.14/2019 dtd 11-01-2019, Complainant prayed to direct the opposite party to produce certain documents including “filled up Application Form for availing the Policy by the Complainant’s wife”. Admittedly, on receipt of copy of aforesaid petition, even the opposite party failed to produce the Proposal Form.
8. D.W.1 Sri Rajesh Das, in cross-examination clearly stated,“I am aware of the fact that notices has been served for the proposal form to be produced before the Forum. The proposal form is not available in the office and has got lost or misplaced sometime back, may be at the time of transit. It is a fact that for absence of the proposal form, I am unable to say whether or not the appropriate box for DAB (Double Accidental Death benefit) was ticked by the proposer/insured Smt Barnali Sarma. The policy is prepared by LICI. Premium calculation is made by LICI. It is a fact that during correspondences regarding DAB made by the complainant, the proposal form was not made available. It is a fact that despite receipt of notice, we have not intimated about non-availability of the proposal form”.
9. The opposite party is totally silent about whether there was any response made by it on receipt of Ext-4 & 5. Evidently, Complainant being the nominee and a beneficiary under the Policy, has the right to go through the Proposal Form when his claim for DAB was turned down on the ground that the same was not applied for by the deceased insured. The Complainant, in cross-examination stated “ I say that had I been given the opportunity by opp. party to come across the proposal form as was enquired for by me, then I would have deicded whether or not to file the instant case”. Thus, it is found clear that this case is the result of non-availability of opportunity to go through the proposal form by the Complainant.For the reasons stated above, the evidence of D.W.1 reproduced hereinbefore is sufficient to hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
The Point no.(i) is determined in favour of the Complainant.
10.Point no.(ii): For the decision of Point No.(i) decided in favour of the Complainant it is held that the Complainant is entitled to get compensation for harassment and inconvenience. He is also entitled to get cost of litigation as prayed for.
Having regard to the entire facts of the case and discussion made in foregoing points, we are of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the compensation is fixed at Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs )only. The Point No.(ii) is decided accordingly.
O R D E R
In the result, the complaint is allowed with cost.The Life Insurance Corporation of India is directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- with cost of Rs.20,000/-to the complainant within
30 (Thirty) days of receipt of copy of the judgment and order. In default,to pay interest @ 9% p.a on the awarded sum from the date of this order.
Given under our hands and seal of this Forum this 06th.day of November, 2019.
Dictated and corrected by: Pronounced and delivered by :
(SMT.A. DEVEE)
President (SMT A. DEVEE)
District Consumer Disputes Redressal President Forum,Sonitpur,Tezpur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Sonitpur,Tezpur
We agree:- (Smti S. Bora ) (Sri P.Das)
Member(F) Member(Gen)
