Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/457/2013

Smt.Nirmal Jaggi w/o sh.Joginder Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Atul Jaiswal

02 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                               Complaint No. 457of  2013.

                                                               Date of institution: 20.06.2013.

                                                               Date of decision: 02.08.2017.

 

Smt. NirmalJaggi wife of Sh. Joginder Pal Jaggi mother of SandeepJaggi R/o 74 Mela Singh Chowk, Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                Versus

1. The Life Insurance Corporation of India Opposite Madhu Palace, Yamuna Nagar through its Manager.
2. The life Insurance Corporation of India Divisional Office, JeewanParkash 429, Model Town, Karnal.

 

                     ….Respondents.

                  

BEFORE    SH. DHARAMPAL, PRESIDENT

                   SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                   SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.          

 

Present:       Sh. AtulJaiswal, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

                    Sh. Rajiv Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondents. 

 

ORDER

 

1.                Complainant NirmalJaggi has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date. 

2.                Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that Late Sh. SandeepJaggi son of the complainant had obtained two life insurance policies bearing No. 174187506 dated 28-01-2005 and 174186830 dated 28-01-2005 from branch office at Yamuna Nagar for a sum assured amount of Rs. 1 lac & 3 Lac. The complainant submitted that Sh. SandeepJaggi died in a road accident near village Kadasan on dated 01-12-2005 at District Ambala leaving behind complainant and his wife Sonia Jaggi as legal heirs entitled to receive the claim of the above said policies from the LIC. She further submitted that a dispute arose between the complainant and Sonia Jaggi in regard to the claim of the above said polices and the complainant filed a suit against Sonia Jaggi and LIC in the court of Law and the Hon’ble of Sh. RavneetGarg HCS Civil Judge Jagadhri had decided vide order dated 24-07-2012 that both the complainant and Sonia Jaggi are entitled to the claim to the extent of ½ share each of the above said polices. The complainant further submitted that as per polices in case of the accident the double of the sum assured amount has to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased but the respondent after submitting the above said judgment paid the single amount of the assured amount on 30-08-2012 vide cheque amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- each, respectively whereas the complainant has been paid ½ of the amount due of her share. In accordance to the polices and judgment,the complainant should have been paid Rs. 4,00,000/- as her share against the said polices. The complainant requested many times to the respondent to release the remaining share of the polices i.e. the amount of double benefit but the respondent did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. The complainant served a regd. AD notice dated 03.09.2012to the respondent through her counsel, which was received by the respondents, but in vain. As such, the respondents are liable to be penalized as they are adopting an unfair trade practice and are also liable for deficient of services towards the complainant and further prayed that respondents be directed to pay the other ½ amount of the above said polices due i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/- along with bonus etc. and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment along with financial loss to the complainant.

 3.               Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, complainant has concealed and suppressed the material and relevant facts of this case. On merits it is submitted that Sh. SandeepJaggi had taken two life Insurance Policies from the respondent corporation bearing No. 174187506 & 174186830 commenced from 28.02.2005 and 28.01.2005 for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- under plan No. 168-20 and 149-70-21 at premium of Rs. 8292/- and Rs. 1378/- payable half yearly and quarterly respectively. Smt. Sonia Jaggi wife of Sh. SandeepJaggi was the nominee in both polices and Sh. SandeepJaggi died on 01-12-2005 and after his death instead of filing the claim for insurance policies in question with the respondent, the complainant straightway had filed a “Civil Suit titled as NirmalJaggi v. Sonia Jaggi as defendant No. 1 and Life Insurance Corporation through its Branch Manager, Yamuna Nagar as defendant No. 2 for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff Smt. NirmalJaggi is entitled to succeed the estate of the deceased Sandeep Kumar Jaggi to the extent of ½ share being mother and his legal heir on account of the above said polices. Vide the above said suit, Smt. NirmalJaggi has taken the stand for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and 3,00,000/- under the said policies. After the death of Sh. Sandep Kumar Jaggi, the complainant knowingly, deliberately and with malicious intention had not filed the claim with mandatory claim requirements viz. the necessary documents and claim forms duly filled in, witnessed and signed with the defendant No. 2 so after the expiry of the time period for 3 years, the claim had been time barred and as such he same was repudiated by the competent authority being time barred case. However the said civil suit was decided by Ld. Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Jagadhri vide its order dated 24-07-2012 and court ordered that the suit of the plaintiff is succeeds andshe was held entitled to succeed to two life insurance policies in the name of deceased SandeepJaggi to the extent of ½ (half) share, defendant No. 2 is restrained from releasing half share out of said two insurance policies in question in favour of defendant No. 1. It is further submitted that to comply with the orders of Hon’ble Civil Court, Jagadhri, the plaintiff was requested to submit an undertaking regarding her acceptance of sum of Rs. 50,000/- under Policy No. 17486830 and Rs. 1,50,000/- under policy No. 174187506 if she is fully convinced by orders dated 24-07-2017 passed in Civil Court.Smt. NirmalJaggi fully convinced for release of said amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- under both polices as she given her free and express consent/acceptance as fully and final settlement of her all claims and had submitted to the respondent the undertaking in the shape of a discharge form dated 14-08-2012 duly witnesses and signed. After receipt of the said undertaking, the respondents have made the payment through cheques amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- and 50,000/- on 30-08-2012 as full and final payment. Rest of the averments made by the complainantare wrong hence denied. The complainant is not entitled to any further amount or compensation from the respondent corporation.  Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                To prove her case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence the complainant’ affidavit as Annexure CX and documents such as photocopies of the polices as Annexure C1 and C2, photocopy of decree sheet and judgment as Annexure C3, photocopy of legal notice as Annexure C4, photocopies of cheques amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- as Annexure C5 and Annexure C6, photocopy of postal receipt as Annexure C7 and photocopy of death certificate of Sh. SandeepJaggi as Annexure C8 and closed evidence on behalf of the complainant.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for the OPs Insurance Company tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Ajay Gupta Manager, (Legal), Divisional Office Karnalas Annexure RW/Aand documents such as certified copies of receipt of Rs. 2,00,000/- as Annexure R-1 and R-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs. 

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely & carefully. 

7.                It is admitted fact that Late Sh. SandeepJaggi was insured with the OPs Insurance Company under the above said polices and he died on 01-12-2005. From the perusal of the case file, it reveals that Insurance company/OP paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- against the policy No. 174186830 and Rs. 1,50,000/- against the policy No. 174187506 vide cheques on 30-08-2012 as full and final payment which was accepted by the complainant as per (Annexure R1 and R2)in view of the decision in civil suit No. 44 of 2006 decided on 24-07-2012 by the court of Ld. Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant was compelled by the OPs at any stage to settle the claim at lessor amount than the claim made by her in the complaint. In the entire complaint, it has nowhere been pleaded by the complainant as to which official of the respondent misrepresented and exercised undue influence on her and compelled her to sign upon the discharge voucher. The complainant, after receiving the cheques and having encashed the same is using the money till date. Had the complainant received the said amount under duress, coercion or pressure, she would have written the same to the respondents forthwith along with her protest. After enjoying the money almost about one year, the complainant wants to review the discharge voucher duly signed by her. Moreover, the complainant has not placed on record any terms and conditions of policy, to prove that she is entitled to Rs. 4,00,000/-. This clearly shows the malafide intention on the part of the complainant in filing of this complaint.

                Counsel for the complainant has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi titled as “SingureddyRamana Murthy versus National Insurance Co. Ltd &Ors, I (2003) CPJ 37”, but the same is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case.

8.                In view of the above discussion, this Forum is of considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties as the complainant had already been received her share without any protest. Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is, hereby, dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.02.08.2017

 

 

                                                               ( DHARAMPAL)

                                                                PRESIDENT

                                                                D.C.D.R.F.YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                AT JAGADHRI

 

 

     (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)         (S.C.SHARMA)

      MEMBER                                          MEMBER

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                                                 ( DHARAMPAL)

                                                           PRESIDENT

                                                           D.C.D.R.F.YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                           AT JAGADHRI