Delhi

New Delhi

CC/451/2015

Sunita - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

22 Aug 2022

ORDER

 

 

  CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI

(NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

Case No.CC.451/2015                               

In the matter of:

 

Smt. Sunita

W/o Late Sh. Sudesh Kumar

R/o H.No. 1744, KotlaMubarakpur,

New Delhi-110003.                                              ....COMPLAINANT

 

Versus

 

LIC of India,

Through Its Branch Manager,

Branch Unite No. 11-Complainant,

F-19, United Insurance Building,

3^rd Floor , Connaught place 

New Delhi-110001                                                                                                               ….. OPPOSITE PARTY

Quorum:

        Ms.PoonamChaudhry, President

          Ms. Nain Adarsh, Member

                                                                                                                              Date of  Institution:13.07.2015                                                                                                                                                                           Date of Order      :   22.08.2022

O R D E R

POONAM CHAUDHRY, PRESIDENT

1. The present complainant has been filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short CP Act) against the Opposite Party alleging deficiency of service. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the husband of the complainant namely Shri Sudesh Kumar was having one LIC policy bearing No. 114103643 and he had regularly deposited all the premiums during his lifetime and he made the complainant as his nominee for the aforesaid LIC policy. That unfortunately on 01.04.2013 the husband of the complainant expired in AIIMS, New Delhi. It is alleged that complainant informed OP about the death of her husband and demanded death benefits in respect of the aforesaid policy, as complainant was the nominee. It is further stated that as OP failed to release the amount, complainant sent a legal notice to OP which was served upon OP.
2. It is also alleged that complainant is a consumer. It is prayed that OP directed to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. 5 Lakhs) to complainant as death claim and compensation and litigation expenses be also awarded.
3. OP contested the case. Reply was filed stating deceased had concealed material information at the time of taking the policy about her medical condition, as such OP was not liable to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. 5 Lakhs) to complainant. It was preyed that complaint dismissed.
4. Vide order dated 13.07.2022, the opportunity to file CE was closed as complainant failed to file the same despite several opportunities being granted.
5. Complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in service but evidence was not led by complainant. The onus of proof of deficiency in service was on the complainant only, after complainant was able to discharge its initial onus the burden would shift on OP.
6.  It is to be noted it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil appeal no. 5759/2009 SGS India Ltd. Vs. Dolphin international decided on 06.10.2021 that the initial burden of proof of deficiency in service was on complainant. The burden would not shift on OP.

It is also to be noted that Hon’ble Supreme Court also held in Indigo Airlines Vs. Kalpana Rani Debbarma and others (2020) 9 SCC 424 that the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the opposite party was primarily on the complaint. The relevant extract of the judgment is as follows:

“28. In our opinion, the approach of the Consumer Fora is in complete disregard of the principles of pleadings and burden of proof. First, the material facts constituting deficiency in service are blissfully absent in the complaint as filed. Second, the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the ground staff of the Airlines at the airport after issuing boarding passes was primarily on the respondent. That has not been discharged by them. The Consumer Fora, however, went on to unjustly shift the onus on the appellants because of their failure to produced any evidence. in law, the burden of proof would shift on the appellants only after the respondents/complainants had discharged their initial burden in establishing the factum of deficiency in service.”

For the foregoing reasons the complaint stands dismissed that ascomplainant failed to prove deficiency of service on part of OP, no order as to costs.

The copy of order be uploaded on the website of the Commission.

File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of the order.

 

 

           (POONAM CHAUDHRY)

             President

 

                                                                 (ADARSH NAIN)                                                                                                                                                                                                       Member