Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/89

Ravinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sandeep Khosla

18 Feb 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

    C.C. No. :                  89 of 2019

    Date of Institution:     25.03.2019

    Date of Decision :      18.02.2020

 

1. Ravinder Kaur aged about 27 years wife of late Mangat Ram son of Kala Ram.
2. Parbhjot Singh minor aged about 5 ½ years son of Mangat Ram son of Kala Ram  through his mother Ravidner Kaur.
3. Sukhmani minor aged about 1 ½ years through his mother Ravinder Kaur.

All residents of Rishi Nagar, Jalaleana Road, Near Balmik Mandir Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

                            ...Complainants

Versus

1. The Life Insurance Corporation of India, through its Senior Divisional Manager, Model Town, Jallandhar.
2. Mahesh Kumar alias Tony Chawla son of Raj Kumar, agent Life Insurance Corporation of India through its Branch Manager, Ferozepur Road, Faridkot, Agency Code 10999334.
3. Nirmal Kaur  widow of Kala Ram now wife of Gurtej Singh r/o Mohalla Mahikhana, Faridkot.  

                                                                        .............OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

 

cc no.-89 of 2019

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Sandeep Khosla, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

              Sh Lakhwinder singh, Ld Counsel for OPs No.1,

              OP-2 and OP-3 Exparte.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                               Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of insurance claim of Rs.4,40,000/-on account of death of Mangat Ram deceased husband of complainant and for further directing OPs to pay compensation for deficiency in service, harassment and litigation expenses.

2                                                        Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on assurance and advise of OP-2, deceased husband of complainant purchased one Insurance Policy of LIC New Money Back Plan-20 years of OP-1 on  14.08.2015 and OP-2 issued the policy bearing no.134034144 through its Branch Manager. OP-2 used to collect the premium in respect of said policy from the house of complainant, but never issued any receipt. Further submitted that husband of complainant was a truck driver and he died in an unfortunate accident due to snake bite in Satrava,

 

cc no.-89 of 2019

District Jodhpur, Rajasthan on his way back from Rajkot, Gujrat to Batala in Punjab and after the death of her husband, she started living with her parents. It is submitted that few days ago, she came to know that her mother in law Nirmal Kaur filed complaint for usurping her share in insurance claim and her complaint was dismissed by this Forum on 7.01.2019. After collecting all documents from OP-3, complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to Insurance Company to make payment of insurance claim on account of death of her husband. Denial by OP-1 and Op-2 to make payment of insurance claim amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. Complainant has prayed for providing her genuine insurance claim from OP-1 and OP-2 by way of accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the instant complaint.

3                                              The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 01.04.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                               On receipt of the notice, the OP-1 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is time barred and as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, complainant is not entitled for any claim or relief sought by her. Moreover, Policy in question has run only for one year and six

 

cc no.-89 of 2019

months and thereafter, due to non payment of premiums, Policy in question entered in lapsed mode on 14.02.2017 and premiums cannot be accepted after the death of husband of complainant. moreover, pleas taken by complainant are totally different from the pleas taken by Nirmal Kaur mother in law of complainant who filed complaint before this Forum titled as Nirmal Kaur Vs LIC, wherein it was admitted by her that when the first instalment of policy was due, her son was in Kolkata and he could not deposit the same and he was ready to deposit the same after his return from Kolkata and while coming back home from Kolkata son of Nirmal Kaur died in an accident on 12.04.2017 and after his death said Nirmal Kaur approached Ops with request to get deposited the remaining premium amount. Said complaint filed by Nirmal Kaur/OP-3 mother in law of complainant no.1 was dismissed by this Forum on 7.01.2019 and complainant has filed the present complaint with after thought and concocted a false story which is totally unbelievable. Moreover, Nirmal Kaur mother of deceased and mother in law of complainant filed complaint on 18.09.2017, which was decided on 7.01.2019 and therefore, complaint filed by complainant is time barred under the principle of res-judicata and it is liable to be dismissed. However, on merits, OP-1 have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated the same pleadings as taken in preliminary objections. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

 

cc no.-89 of 2019

5                                                        As per office report, notice containing copy of complaint alongwith relevant documents was sent to OP-2, but OP-2 refused to accept the same. Similarly, notice issued to OP-3 was also duly served, but despite several calls, nobody appeared in the Forum on behalf of OP-2 and OP-3 either in person or through counsel on date fixed to contest the allegations of complainant and therefore, vide order dated 13.05.2019, both OP-2 and OP-3 were proceeded against exparte.

6                                                        Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant no.1 Ex.C-1and documents Ex C-2 to C-79 and then, closed their evidence.

7                                                        Ld Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Harmesh Chander Ex OP-1, documents Ex OP-2 to Ex OP-12 and thereafter, despite availing sufficient opportunities, OP-1 did not conclude their evidence and therefore, vide order dated 5.02.2020, evidence of OP-1 was closed by order of this Forum.

8                                                        We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have carefully gone through the pleadings, arguments, evidence and documents placed on record by respective parties.

 

cc no.-89 of 2019

9                                              Ld Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that on assurance of OP-2, deceased husband of complainant purchased  New Money Back Plan-20 years Insurance Policy of LIC /OP-1 and OP-2 used to collect the premium from her house but never issued any receipt. It is argued that her husband was a truck driver, who died due to snake bite in Rajasthan on his way back from Gujrat to Batala in Punjab and after his death, mother in law of complainant filed complaint in this Forum for usurping her share in insurance claim. Complaint filed by Nirmal Kaur/OP-3/ mother in law of complainant was dismissed by this Forum on 7.01.2019 and then, after collecting all documents from OP-3, complainant has filed the present complaint for directions to Insurance Company to make payment of insurance claim on account of death of her husband. She has prayed for accepting the present complaint

10                                             To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OPs asserted that complaint filed by complainant is time barred and she is not entitled for any relief. Moreover, Policy in question has run only for one year and six months and thereafter, due to non payment of premiums, it was lapsed on 14.02.2017. Premiums cannot be accepted after the death of husband of complainant. ld counsel for OP-1 brought before the Forum that pleas taken by complainant are totally different from the pleas taken by Nirmal Kaur mother in law of complainant who filed complaint before this Forum titled as Nirmal Kaur

 

cc no.-89 of 2019

Vs Life Insurance Corporation, wherein her mother in law herself admitted that premiums were not paid by her deceased son, who was husband of complainant no.1. In said complaint Nirmal Kaur admitted that when the first instalment of policy was due, her son was in Kolkata and he could not deposit the same, but he was ready to deposit the same after his return from Kolkata and while coming back home from Kolkata son of Nirmal Kaur died in an accident on 12.04.2017 and after his death said Nirmal Kaur approached Ops with request to get deposited the remaining premium amount. Said complaint filed by Nirmal Kaur/OP-3 mother in law of complainant no.1 was dismissed by this Forum on 7.01.2019 and complainant has filed the present complaint with afterthought. Further argued that Nirmal Kaur mother of deceased and mother in law of complainant no.1 filed complaint on 18.09.2017, which was decided on 7.01.2019 and therefore, complaint filed by complainant is time barred under the principle of res-judicata and is liable to be dismissed. There is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

11                                              From the carful perusal of record and evidence produced by respective parties, it is observed that grievance of the complainant is that deceased husband of complainant was insured with OPs and after his death, complainant came to know about the present policy and she has prayed for directions to OP-1 and OP-2 to make

 

cc no.-89 of 2019

payment of insurance claim on account of death of her husband, who died due to snake bite while coming home from Kolkata. On the other hand, OP-1 brought before the Forum that there is no deficiency in service on their part as policy in question ran only for short period and due to non payment of premiums it was lapsed and after the death of Mangat Ram, mother in law of complainant no.1/Op-3 approached them to deposit the premium amounts, which is not permissible as per rules and regulations of the Insurance Policy. Moreover, Nirmal Kaur mother in law of complainant no.1 earlier filed complaint before this Forum titled as Nirmal Kaur Vs LIC, wherein she herself admitted that when the first instalment of policy was due, her son was in Kolkata and he could not deposit the same, but he was ready to deposit the same after his return from Kolkata and while coming back home from Kolkata son of Nirmal Kaur died in an accident on 12.04.2017 and after his death said Nirmal Kaur approached Ops with request to get deposited the remaining premium amount. Said complaint filed by Nirmal Kaur/OP-3 mother in law of complainant no.1 was dismissed by this Forum on 7.01.2019. In that complaint Nirmal Kaur/OP-3 herself admitted before the Forum that during his life time, the insured failed to pay insurance premiums on time even within the grace period and due to non payment of premiums, the insurance policy entered in lapsed mode. Now, the complainant has filed the present false complaint only by twisting the facts to mislead this Forum that they have paid the premiums in respect of insurance policy

cc no.-89 of 2019

through agent/OP-2. Whereas in earlier complaint, there was no pleading regarding payment of premiums through agent. Moreover, the complainants have not produced any evidence or receipt to prove that they have paid any premium to OP-2. Moreover, as per guidelines and regulations of LIC, no agent is competent to collect the premiums from any Policy Holder. As per para no.9 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations 1972, agents cannot collect any premium. Regulation No. 8 is given hereunder:

                 “ Nothing contained in these regulations shall be deemed to confer any authority on an agent to collect any money or to accept any risk for or on behalf of Corporation or to bind the Corporation in any manner, whatsoever”.

 Complainant has filed this false and frivolous complaint against OPs and ld counsel for OP-1 has prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

12                                      From the above discussion, we are of considered opinion that complainants have failed to prove that they have paid payment of insurance premiums to LIC. So, their policy was in lapsed condition at the time of death of insured Mangat Ram. As such, LIC has rightly repudiated the claim of complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Hence, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of the

cc no.-89 of 2019

order be supplied to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 18.02.2020

 

(Param Pal Kaur)           (Ajit Aggarwal)

           Member                         President