West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/17/2018

Shorashi Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

31 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

   Sibasis Sarkar, Ld. President,

                                                                                       Anindita Roy, Ld. Member,

                                                           

Complaint Case No.17/2018.

 

                                                                    Shorashi Singh S/o-Late Dilip Singh

                                                          Vill.Barmanikpur,P.O.Midnapore,P.S.Kotwali,

                                                                 Dist.-Paschim Medinipur,Pin-721101.                                                                                                     …………..Complainant.

                                                                                                 -Vs-                                                                                                                       

1. The Life Insurance Corporation of India

                                                                 Represented by its Senior Divisional Manager,

                                                        Life Insurance Corporation of India,Kharagpur Division,

                                                               At near Lal Bunglow,P.O.Nimpura,Kharagpur,

                                                              P.S.Kharagpur (Town),Dist.Paschim Medinipur,

                                                                                             Pin-721304.

.

                                                                2.The Zonal Manager, L.I.C.of India,

                                                                  Eastern Zonal Office, at 4,C.R.Avenue,

                                                                   Hindustan Building, Kolkata-700072.

                                   

                                                                3.The Branch Manager, L.I.C.I.at Inda,

                                                                  Kharagpur,P.O.Kharagpur,Dist.Paschuim Medinipur.

                                                                                                                                   ……………..Opp.Parties.

                                                            

                                                      Date of filing: 19/02/2018                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                      Decided on   : 31/10/2018

                                                                                                                                    Contd…..2

 

 -2-

 

                                              FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT.

              

                        SIBASIS SARKAR,Ld.President:– The present petition of complaint U/S-12 of C.P.Act,1986 has been filed by the complainant Shorashi Singh wherein she has stated that one Dilip Singh, since deceased was his father. During his life time, the said Dilip Singh purchased one insurance policy from the O.P.No.1 being Policy No.498748869 for the sum  assured Rs.75,000/-. In the said policy the complainant has been named as nominee of the said policy holder. Dilip Singh died on 15.10.2016. After his death, the complainant being the nominee submitted claim application in prescribed form duly filled in. Unfortunately the complainant received one letter dated-13.11.2017 from O.P.No.1 in which they repudiated the claim of the complainant without any basis. As such the complainant has been compelled to file the present case.

 

               The O.Ps.are contesting the case by filing written version denying all the material allegations mentioned in the petition of complaint, contending inter-alia that the case is not maintainable in its present form and prayer. There is no cause of action for the present case. The specific case of the O.Ps./LICI is that there is discrepancy in the age of the deceased. The age of the deceased mentioned in the proposal form submitted by the deceased does not tally with the age mentioned in the driving license of the deceased. As such, the O.Ps. had no other alternative but to repudiate the claim of the complainant as per Sec.45 of the Insurance Act 1938. So, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for and the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

 

              Considering the rival pleadings of both the parties the following points have been framed :-

                                 Points for considerations

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and prayer ?
2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
4. To what other relief or reliefs is the complainant entitled ?

 

                        Decision with reasons.

Point No.1 :

                  This point is not pressed by the parties. As such this point is decided in favour of the complainant.

 

                                                                                                                                                                           Contgd….3

                                                                                                        -3-

 

Point No.2 :

                   It is the admitted fact of both the parties that Dilip Singh, since deceased was the insurance policy holder being policy No.498748869  under the O.Ps /LICI. From the document annexed we find that the said Dilip Singh died on 15.10.2016. It is also undisputed that complainant has been mentioned as nominee in the said policy by the deceased policy holder. It is also the admitted fact that the complainant submitted claim application before the O.Ps. and they repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground of discrepancy of age of the deceased  mentioned in the policy and the age mentioned in the driving license of the deceased.

 

                   There is no doubt that the age mentioned in the proposal form of the deceased does not tally with the age mentioned in the driving license of the deceased. But it can be safely presumed  that the  LIC agent duly verified the age of the deceased at the time  of filling up the proposal form. Besides  that we find that the age mentioned in the Voter Card of the deceased tally with the age of the deceased mentioned in the proposal form. We cannot understand what prevented the O.Ps. to accept the age mentioned in the Voter Identity Card.  So ,we think that there was no basis for repudiating the claim of the complainant which tantamount to deficiency in service. Thus we hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. This point is thus decided in favour of the complainant.

 

Point No.3 & 4 :

                  From the discussions made above and in the light of our observation it is found that there was deficiency  in service on the part of the O.Ps. As such the complainant is entitled to get relief.

                  

                  From the policy being No.498748869, we find that the sum assured was Rs.75,000/-. From the record we find that the complainant has already received Rs.16,490/- out of sum assured. So, the said amount of Rs.16,490/- is required to be deducted. Thus the complainant is entitled to get Rs.75,000/- (-) Rs.16,490/- = Rs.58,510/- for the policy in question as nominee of deceased Dilip Singh. We have already found that there was dispute regarding the age of deceased Dilip Singh ,which made the O.Ps confused. So, it will not be wise to pay the amount of compensation as prayed for by the complainant. However considering the delay and harassment of the complainant, we think that the O.Ps.must pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.5000/- towards litigation cost. These points are thus decided in favour of the complainant.

 

                 As a result the case succeeds.             

 

                            Hence, it is,

                                               Ordered

                         that the Complaint Case No.17/2018 be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.Ps. with a litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.

    The O.Ps. are thus directed to pay Rs.58,510/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.5,000/- = Rs.73,510/- in total by A/C Payee Cheque in the name of the complainant within one month from this day, failing which the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of this case i.e. on and from 19.2.2018 till realisation. The complainant will be at liberty to realise the entire amount by putting this order into Execution in accordance with law. 

                                      

                                                                                                                                                         Contd…….4.

 

                                                                                                        -4-

 

 Let the original documents, if any, and the extra sets if any be returned to the parties on proper receipt. Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost on proper acknowledgement or be sent by speed post, if not collected by the parties within 10 days from the date of order.                 

             

.

                           Member                                                                                     President

                                                                                                                           District Forum

                                                                                                                        Paschim Medinipur