Haryana

Karnal

819/11

Smt. Savita - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Surinder Kumar

24 Jul 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.819 of 2011

                                                               Date of instt. 25.11.2011

                                                               Date of decision:15 .10.2015

 

Smt.Savita widow of late Sh.Sanjay son of Shri Norang resident of village Bairsal Dera Anand Sonepat  wala tehsil Nilokheri district Karnal.

                                                   ……….Complainant.

                             Versus

 

1.Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Neevan Parkash Building, Model Town, Karnal through its Divisional Manager.

 

2.Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch No.II, Branch Office, Sant Nagar, Hansi Road, Karnal through Branch Manager.

                                                           ……… Opposite parties.

 

                    Complaint U/s  12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma ………Member.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma…..Member.     

 

 Present:       Sh.Surinder Kumar Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Pankaj Malhotra Advocate for the Ops.

 

ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that her husband Sanjay Kumar  got himself insured with the  Opposite Parties ( in short Ops) vide insurance policy No.175496679  dated 28.3.2007 and her name was mentioned as nominee in the said policy.  Sanjay Kumar had deposited   three installments of the premium of Rs.10,000/- each with the OP No.2. Unfortunately, he died on 22..12.2010. Thereafter, the complainant lodged her   claim under the said  insurance policy and completed all the formalities, but the Ops refused to pay any claim to her, vide letter dated 24.5.2011, on the ground that the  policy was surrendered on 21.9.2010 and surrender value of Rs.31369/- was paid vide cheque No.189034 dated 21.9.2010 which was encashed on 5.10.2010.  In fact, her husband  had neither surrendered the policy nor received any   cheque as surrender value of the policy, but the Ops did  not recheck their record and flatly refused to accede to her requests. She  sent legal notice to OP no.2, but same also did not yield any result. In this way, there was deficiency ;in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops, which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant apart from financial loss.

 

2.                 Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops, who appeared and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. It has been submitted that deceased Sanjay Kumar had surrendered the policy on 21.9.2010 and the surrender value payment of Rs.31369/- was sent vide cheque no.189034 dated 20.9.2010, which was encashed by some  other Sanjay on 5.10.2010. Again cheque No.293830 dated 3.2.2012  was sent to the complainant, which was encashed on 23.3.2012.  Ops  had made payment as per rules and the complainant was not entitled to the death claim. It has been denied that there was  deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops.

 

3.                 In evidence of complainant, her affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9  have been tendered.

 

4.                 On the other hand, in evidence of Ops, affidavit of Sh.P.K.Saxena, Manager Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O1 and Ex.O2 have been tendered. However, in additional evidence Ops produced documents Ex.O3 to Ex.O9.

 

5.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

6.                 Admittedly, the husband of the comloainant obtained insurance policy from the OPs on 28.3.2007 and  deposited three installments of Rs.10,000/- each, as premium. He had died on 22.1.2.2010.The complainant lodged claim regarding death of her husband, but the same was repudiated by the OPs .

 

7.                 The learned counsel for the Ops  put a great thrust upon the contention that deceased life assured Sh.Sanjay Kumar surrendered the policy on 21.9.2010 and cheque No. 189034 dated 20.9.2010 was issued by the OPs as surrender value of the policy, which was got encashed by some other Sanjay Kumar, but later on cheque  bearing NO.293830 dated 3.2.2012 amounting to Rs.31369/- was sent to the complainant, which was got encashed by her on 23.3.2012. After surrendering the policy by the husband of the complainant, he was left with no right in the said policy and the complainant could not claim benefits under the policy after his death.

 

8.                 The complainant has specifically alleged in the complaint that her husband had not surrendered the policy at any point of time and she is entitled to get benefits under the policy after his death.

 

9.                 Thus, the matter into controversy boils down into a narrow compass and the material question which arises for consideration is whether deceased life assured Sanjay Kumar had surrendered the policy on 21.9.2010 as alleged by the Ops. The copy of the application of  Sanjay and receipt for the surrender value of the policy Ex.O3 and Ex.O4 respectively  show that Sanjay Kumar had surrendered his policy and executed the receipt for the surrender value of the policy. The complainant could not lead any evidence to prove that the said application for surrender of the policy and receipt for surrender value of the policy were  not signed by Sanjay Kumar. Mere allegation in the complaint that her husband  had not surrendered the policy at any  point of time, cannot be accepted as proof without any cogent evidence. Therefore, under such circumstances, it stands established that Sanjay Kumar had surrendered his policy and executed receipt for surrender value of the policy.

 

10.               Now the question arises whether the complainant is entitled to get all the benefits under the policy on the ground that surrender value of the policy was not received by her husband Sanjay Kumar during his life time. The answer is in negative. Once Sanjay Kumar surrendered the policy and executed the receipt for surrender value, no other benefits except the surrender value could be claimed by Sanjay Kumar or by complainant after the death of Sanjay Kumar.  No doubt, surrender value of the policy was not paid to Sanjay Kumar during his life time, rather the same was received by another Sanjay Kumar,  but when this fact came to the notice of the Ops,  another cheque of the surrender value was issued in favour of the complainant, which was admittedly got encashed by her on 23.3.2012, during the pendency of the present complaint. Thus, at the most, there could be negligence on the part of the Ops in not verifying   immediately that the cheque of the surrender value was in fact received by Sanjay Kumar life assured or  by some other Sanjay Kumar.  The argument of the learned counsel for the Ops that due to fault of the postal authorities, the cheque was delivered to some other Sanjay Kumar and as such Ops cannot be considered as negligent or held liable for such lapse, cannot be accepted. It was incumbent upon the OPs to ensure that cheque was delivered to  life assured and not to some other Sanjay Kumar. In this way,  there was deficiency in services on the part of the Ops to the extent of non delivery of the cheque to life assured Sanjay Kumar and on account of that Sanjay Kumar and after  his death, the complainant suffered loss regarding interest on the amount of surrender value of the policy. During the pendency of the complaint, Ops paid  only  the amount of surrender value of the policy i.e. Rs.31369/- to the complainant by way of cheque and no interest was  paid on the same, whereas the complainant was certainly entitled to get interest on the said amount under the facts and circumstances of the present case.  Consequently, the complainant suffered mental harassment apart from financial loss.   

 

10.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to make the payment of interest on the amount of Rs.31369/- to the complainant at the rate of nine per cent per annum from the date when the earlier cheque was issued by the Ops i.e.  20.9.2010 till 23.3.2012.  The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/- for the mental agony and harassment caused to her and a sum of Rs.2200/- for the litigation expenses. The Ops shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:15.10.2015                                                                            

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.

 

 

 

 

 

Present:        Sh.Surinder Kumar Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Pankaj Malhotra Advocate for the Ops.

 

                    Arguments on the application for additional evidence filed by the Ops heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the application allowed. Arguments on the main complaint also heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the main complaint accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced
dated:15.10.2015                                                                            

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                              Member.

 

 

 

 

 

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                           In complaint No.819 of 2011

                                                               Date of instt. 25.11.2011

                                                               Date of decision:15 .10.2015

 

Smt.Savita widow of late Sh.Sanjay son of Shri Norang resident of village Bairsal Dera Anand Sonepat  wala tehsil Nilokheri district Karnal.

                                                   ……….Complainant.

                             Versus

 

1.Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Neevan Parkash Building, Model Town, Karnal through its Divisional Manager.

 

2.Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch No.II, Branch Office, Sant Nagar, Hansi Road, Karnal through Branch Manager.

                                                           ……… Opposite party.

 

                    Complaint U/s  12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

                    Application for additional evidence.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma ………Member.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma…..Member.     

 

 Present:       Sh.Surinder Kumar Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Pankaj Malhotra Advocate for the Ops/applicants.

 

ORDER:

 

                   The learned counsel for the Ops has filed an application for additional evidence.

                   Heard.

 

1.                 The complainant has alleged that her husband had obtained insurance policy dated 28.3.2007 from the Opposite Parties ( in short OPs)  and had paid three installments of the premium Rs.10,000/- each. He died on 22.12.2010and  after his death she lodged claim for benefits under the insurance policy, but her claim was repudiated on the ground that her husband surrendered the policy on 21.9.2010 and payment of Rs.31369/-  was made as surrender value  of the policy to him vide cheque no.189034  dated 21.9.2010.

 

2.                 The Ops in the written statement submitted that Sanjay Kumar, the  husband of the complainant, had surrendered the policy on 21.9.2010 and the surrender value payment of the policy amounting to Rs.31,369/- was sent by Ops vide cheque NO.189034 dated 21.9.2010 which was in fact encashed by some another Sanjay Kumar on 5.10.2010, therefore, again cheque No.293830 dated 3.2.2012 was sent to the complainant, which was encashed  on 23.3.2012.

 

3.                 Thus, the dispute between the parties is whether Sanjay Kumar deceased life assured had surrendered the policy on 21.9.2010 as alleged by the OPs.  Now, Ops want to produce the copy of the application moved by Sanjay Kumar, copy of the receipt for surrender value of the policy, copy of the current  transaction statement, copy of surrender value payment voucher, copy of status report of the policy, copy of the relevant page No.2 of the register, copy of speed  post booking list dated 6.2.2012 by way of additional evidence.  The production of these documents is certainly necessary for  arriving at the right conclusion regarding surrender of the policy by Sanjay Kumar, the  husband of the complainant. Therefore, the application is allowed. The documents be read as Ex.O3 to Ex.O9.

 

Announced
dated:15.10.2015                                                                            

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.