Punjab

Sangrur

CC/423/2017

Karampal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Life Insurance corporation of India - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Rajan Kapil

08 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  423

                                                Instituted on:    23.08.2017

                                                Decided on:       08.12.2017

 

Karampal Singh son of Balwinder Singh R/o Village Bijalpur, P.O. Ghanaur  Jattan via Bhawanigarh, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

L.I.C. office, Railway Road, Sangrur through Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite party

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Rajan Kapil, Adv.

For OP                     :       Shri Amit Goyal, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Karampal Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that during the life time of mother of the complainant, namely, Smt. Surinder Kaur took an insurance policy bearing number 161682749 with date of proposal as 22.11.1998 with the maturity date as 28.11.2013 for Rs.1,00,000/-from the OP.  The premium payable was to the tune of Rs.7350/- on yearly basis.  The case of the complainant is that the mother of the complainant got missed on 27.11.2005 and the LRs of the insured Surinder Kaur filed a civil suit for declaration for declaring Surinder Kaur as civilly dead, which was decreed on 5.11.2016.  The grievance of the complainant is that though he has submitted all the requisite documents to the OP, but the OP wrongly deducted an amount of Rs.33,649/- when the payment of the policy was made in the year 2017 which was due on 28.11.2013. Nothing happened despite service of legal notice dated 9.6.2017 upon the OP. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.33,649/- and interest from 28.11.2013 to 2017 and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by the OP, preliminary objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complainant has dragged the OP into unwanted litigation and that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party as the complainant has not impleaded LIC of India, Divisional Office, Chandigarh. On merits, it is admitted that the insured Surinder Kaur had obtained an insurance policy bearing number 161682749 for the insured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with date of commencement as 28.11.1998 and date of maturity as 28.11.2012. It is also stated that the premium had been paid up to 11/2011. It is stated that at the time of obtaining the policy in question, the life assured submitted here date of birth as 6.6.1952, whereas in the ration card submitted by the complainant along with claim papers, age of the life assured is shown as 57 years as on 20.11.2005 and as such it is established that the life assured had intentionally submitted her age on lower side i.e. about 5 years less from the real one.  Though taking the above fact as material concealment, the OP could have declared the policy as void-ab-initio, but taking a lenient view, the Ops released the maturity amount to the complainant after deducting Rs.26,484/- on account of difference of premiums and interest.  Further it is stated that the premiums under the policy were paid only upto 11/2011 and the last premium due to be paid on 11/2012 was not paid by the complainant and as such the OP deducted the amount of Rs.8065/- from the maturity proceeds on account of unpaid premium of 11/2012.  It is also stated that the nominee under the policy was Balwinder Singh, husband of the complainant, who had already died in the year 2007 i.e. before the date of maturity of the policy in question.  It is stated further that the complainant after obtaining the decree from civil court on 5.11.2016 lodged the claim under the policy with the OP and the payment of claim amount was made to the complainant on 22.3.2017 and as such there is no delay on the part of the OP. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 copies of the documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-17 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the life insured Smt. Surinder Kaur was insured under the policy number 161682749 dated 28.11.1998 for the insured sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. In the present case, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that that the life insured got missed on 27.11.2005 and the LRs filed a civil suit for declaring Surinder Kaur as civilly dead which was decreed by the civil court on 5.11.2016, as such the complainant submitted the documents to the OP for making the payment of claim amount.  But, the OP at the time of settlement of the claim deducted an amount of Rs.26,484/- on account of difference of premiums and interest and further an amount of Rs.8065/- on account of unpaid premium of 11/2012. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the amount of Rs.33,649/- has been illegally deducted from the final payment to the complainant by the OP.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has contended that the OP has rightly settled the claim and has paid the rightful amount to the complainant on account of claim amount, as at the time of  obtaining the insurance policy in question, the life assured submitted her date of birth as 6.6.1952, whereas in the ration card submitted by the complainant along with claim papers, age of the life assured is shown as 57 years as on 20.11.2005 and as such it is established that life assured had intentionally submitted her age on lower side i.e. about 5 years less from the real one.  It is vehemently further contended by the learned counsel for the OP that though taking the above fact as material concealment, the OP could have declared the policy as void-ab-initio, but taking a lenient view, the OP has released the maturity amount to the complainant after deducting an amount of Rs.26,484/- on account of difference of premiums and interest.  Further it is contended by the learned counsel for the OP that the premiums under the policy were paid only upto 11/2011 and the last premium due to be paid on 11/2012 was not paid by the complainant and as such the OP deducted the amount of Rs.8065/- from the maturity proceeds on account of unpaid premium of 11/2012. It is further contended that the amount of the claim has rightly been paid to the complainant. But, we are unable to go with the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the OP has any right to deduct the amount on account of difference of premium and interest to the tune of Rs.26,484/- at the time of settlement of the claim. We may mention that it was the duty of the OP to check the age of the life assured at the time of issuance of the insurance policy and not at the time of settlement of the insurance claim.  There is no explanation that why the date of birth was not earlier checked by the OP at the time of issuance of the insurance policy. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the OP has no right to deduct the amount of Rs.26,484/- on account of difference of age of the life assured.  Further we may mention that on the ration card, the approximate age is mentioned and it cannot be treated as a conclusive proof of age.  However, we feel that the Op has rightly deducted the unpaid premium for 11/2012 to the tune of Rs.8065/-.  In the circumstances, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the OP is directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.26,484/- deducted by the OP at the time of final payment to the complainant.

 

6.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.26,484/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 23.08.2017 till realisation. We further direct the Op to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        December 8, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

                                                             

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member