Complainants Sukhwinder Kaur and her husband Jaswant Singh vides the present complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter, for short called ‘the Act’) has sought directions to the titled opposite parties (for short, ‘the OP insurers’) namely: i) the Batala Branch and ii) the Amritsar Divisional Office of LIC of India through their respective Managers; to release all the accident-benefits pertaining to the insurance death claim of the Policy purchased by their DLA son (during his life-time) before his death in an RTA (road traffic accident) besides to pay them Rs.10,000/- as compensation along with the litigation cost etc., in the interest of justice. The case of the complainants in brief is that their son Lovjot Singh (S/o Jaswant Singh) during his life time had purchased the LIC policy # 473085521 (from the opposite parties) commencing from 27.11.2010 for an assured sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and had been paying its premiums regularly. The DLA (deceased life assured) prior to his death on 29.03.2013 in a Road Traffic accident (near Tanda) had attained the age of majority and as per the OP insurers he never opted for inclusion of accident benefits coverage in his Policy and thus all the accident benefits have been refused to them. However, the complainants have pleaded that their son died of the injuries received in an Road Traffic Accident and as such they being the legal heirs of the DLA have been fully entitled to all the accident benefits as applicable to the LIC Policies and thus prompted the present complaint with the desired relief duly prayed hereinabove.

2.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party insurers who appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply stating therein that the BSA (basic sum assured) already stood paid and the complainants are not entitled to the DBA (double accident benefits) since the DLA/the Proposer has never applied for the same during his life-time upon attaining the age of maturity and before his death. And, further labeling the present complaint as frivolous and merit-less etc., the same has been prayed to be dismissed with exemplary costs along with any other relief to which the OP insurers be found entitled under the law. Sic 

3.       The Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C/W1 along with other documents exhibited as: Ex.CI to Ex.CXI and closed the evidence; whereas the Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP1 of Yogender Singh Sisodia Manager CRM, simply deposing the contents of the written reply along with the copy of the related Policy exhibited here as: Ex.OP2. We have duly considered the pleadings of both the parties; heard the arguments advanced by their counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.

4.       We observe that the OP insurers have already settled and paid the full BSA (Basic Sum Assured) claim to the complainants duly admitting the death of the DLA (Deceased Life Assured) caused as a result of having met with a Road Traffic Accident as also deposed through the affidavit Ex.C/W-I and evidenced through the police FIR Ex.C/VI, the Post Mortem Report (PMR) Ex.C/VII & the un-natural death Form 25.35(I) APPR Ex.C/X; however for repudiating the DAB (Double Accident Benefits) claim the OP insurers’ prime objection has been that the DLA (deceased Life Assured) who was minor at the time of commencement (27.11.2010) of the related Policy did not opt for the DAB facility upon attaining the age of majority on 09.03.2013 (DOB being 09.03.1995). However, it is worth-noting here that no doubt the DLA attained majority on 09.03.2013 but to die only 20 days later, in a RTA (road-traffic accident) on 29.03.2013. Unfortunately, the DLA lived in majority for 20 days only and true that during the period he did not opt for the inclusion of accident benefits in the continuing Policy Ex.OP2, but the fact also stays back (to speak it aloud) that he was never provided either with any opportunity to opt for the inclusion of accident-benefits coverage in the continuing Policy neither there is any evidence on record that the DLA ever refused the said ‘option’. The OP insurers, as per the material available on records, never tried to approach the DLA with the said ‘option’ during and/ or before this short period of 20 days. This proposition carries enhanced emphasis since the DLA here, had not even fully completed his 16 years of age (being 15 years & 8 months) at the time of commencement of Policy on 27.11.2010 (D.O.B. being 09.03.1995) and though strange he (the minor DLA) himself was the ‘Proposer’ and duly accepted by the OP insurers against the prevalent norms and sanctity of professional ethics. Thus it was more (rather ‘ALL’) ‘requisite’ to the OP insurers to have put forth the ‘option’ for inclusion of accident benefits before the DLA, much before and well ahead in time, for exercise by him upon attaining ‘majority’ on 09.03.2013; but it was not to be so. And, presently the OP insurers shall not be allowed to escape/shun its professional liability of vital intimation/information to its consumers, the deprivation/non-availability of which amounts to deficiency in service/ unfair trade practice. It is ripe time that the insurance service-providers wake up to march ahead in step with the global awakening to fresher horizons in ‘consumer-rights’. Amen

5.       In the light of the all above, we hold the OP insurers guilty of ‘unfair trade practice’ by issuing the LIC Policy (for obviously no valid reason) to the minor DLA with he himself as the Proposer and that too when bothhis natural guardians (father/mother, the present complainants) were very much alive and available; and again for ‘deficiency in service’ on their part by not providing the DLA (upon his attaining majority) with an opportunity to exercise his option for inclusion of accident benefits in the Policy in question. However, we understand that all these award payments are to be made out of the Public Money funds and moreover no one should get undue enrichments through public-litigation (en-cashing one’s whose) hence, we partly allow only a moderate compensation to the present complainants and thus ORDER the OP insurers to pay them a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- but within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of filing of the complaint till actual payment.                               

6.       Copy of the orders be communicated to the parties free of charges and the File be consigned to the record room.        

                                                            (Naveen Puri)                                                                                                     

                                                                  President               

ANNOUNCED:                   (G.B.S.Bhullar)                 (Jagdeep Kaur)                 

January 29, 2015.                          Member.                                    Member.

*YP*