JUDGEMENT

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that Dr. Sukumar Dasgupta was a policy holder of LICI vide Policy No. 554021963 dated 27.08.2003 and another Policy No.554012979 dated 28.02.2003 and in the Policy No.554021963 there was a nominee named ‘Mira Dasgupta’ and during lifetime of the policy holder he sent a letter in the prescribed form of LICI and changed the name of nominee on 08.03.2006 in favour of ‘Soma Chakraborty’ in place of ‘Mira Dasgupta’ and the said policy holder gave so many declaration that Soma Chakraborty is the adopted daughter who looked after his last life.

          Accordingly on the death of Dr. Sukumar Dasgupta, the adopted father of the complainant on 04.02.2009 at Swarti Nursing Home, Kolkata, sent a letter by way of registered post with A/D addressing to the ops dated 06.06.2009 as nominee.  But op did not reply and when Dr. Sukumar Dasgupta died, complainant was the student and she also produced all the documents which were available with her and the complainant till 2012 regularly keeping contact with the LICI personally and also through agent, all are advised to complainant to wait for sometime.

          Subsequently complainant wrote a letter to the Ombudsman authority on 18.02.2012 for disbursement award of the policy amounting to Rs.2,66,665/-.  But fortunately KICI Jamshedpur Division addressed to the complainant in this regard on 05.07.2012 and disclosed that the award of the policy already paid to Mrs. Mira Dasgupta without considering and or verifying the record of the LICI.  LICI Jamshedpur Division sent some copy of application to withdraw the award amount of Rs.10,000/- relating to Policy No.554012979 and LICI Jamshedpur Division distributed the policy award by way of cheque amounting to Rs.10,000/- in last part of December-2012.

          But the LICI not at all paid the policy award of Policy No.554021963 till date and in the mean time on the basis of the complain Ombusdman Department sent notices but they did nothing.  Fact remains the Ombudsman authority clearly mentioned that the name of the complainant duly recorded as nominee since 08.03.2006 but LICI wrongly paid the death benefit of Dr. Sukumar Dasgupta in favour of Smt Mira Dasgupta on 28.07.2009 for Rs.2,56,865/- and fact remains LICI authority in collusion with Smt Mira Dasgupta paid the death benefit in favour of Mira Dasgupta.  Though as LICI policy rules it was payable to nominee the present complainant and practically LICI wrongly settled the death claim of Dr. Sukumar Dasgupta suppressing the name of the nominee who is the present complainant of the complaint and for such sort of negligence and deficient manner of service, complainant filed this case and prayed for redressal and refund of money.

          On the other hand the Insurance Company filing written version has submitted that the complaint is barred by limitation and mis-joinder and non-joinder of party and no part of transaction was made in between the Division Bench or this Forum.  Further it has been submitted that death claim under the Policy No.554021963 was settled in favour of the nominee Smt Mira Dasgupta on 28.07.2009 for Rs.2,56,805/- and the change of nomination was inadvertently overlooked and was paid to the legal heir of the deceased policy holder.  So the present complainant ought to have been filed before 28.07.2011.  But anyhow this complaint was filed on 17.04.2013 that is long after 4 years.  So, it is time barred.  Further it is submitted that Mira Dasgupta is legally married wife but no document was filed that the complainant is adopted daughter, no Court paper was filed and moreover first policy on 21.06.2012 for Insurance Company received claim of the complainant, whereas insured died on 04.02.2009.

          Moreover the grievance of the complainant has already been decided by the Ombudsman and no doubt in the complaint there is no deficiency and negligence on the part of the op and for which the complaint should be dismissed.

                                                       Decision with reasons

          On proper consideration of the complaint and the written version and also considering the entire materials on record as produced by the complainant and op, it is clear that Mira Dasgupta is legal married wife of Dr. Sukumar Dasgupta.  No doubt the policy amount in respect of Policy No.554021963 was paid to Mira Dasgupta on 28.07.2009 on the death of her husband on 04.02.2009 and prior to 21.06.2012 present complainant did not submit any complaint before the Insurance company.  Further it is found that in the present case complainant has failed to produce any document in support of his status as adopted daughter.

          Truth is that nominee is entitled to get the matured amount on the death of any insured.  But if it is paid to the real owner, the wife in that case it can safely be said that no nominee can claim the same.  Moreover nominee can draw his money but she is not the legally entitled to get it.  But she is entitled to receive and to deliver to legal heir of husband what the entire amount of Dr. Sukumar Dasgupta already handed over and reimbursed to his legally married wife which is undisputed and that was made on 28.07.2009 whereas the present complaint was filed on 17.04.2013.  So, apparently the present complaint is barred by limitation as per provision of Section 24A of C.P. Act 1986 and most interesting factor is that cause of action arose on and from the date of the death of Dr. Sukumar Dasgupta and no doubt Dr. Sukumar Dasgupta died on 04.02.2009.  So, it was the duty of the complainant to file the application for condonation of such delay before admission of this claim, but that was not submitted. 

          So, since filing of this case, it is time barred and when the complaint is hopelessly, time barred u/s 24A of C.P. Act 1986 so under any circumstances this Forum has no jurisdiction to condone such delay for which the complaint is barred by limitation.  But if there is any dispute in between the wife of Dr. Sukumar Dasgupta and so called adopted daughter i.e. the present complainant and legally married wife of Dr. Sukumar Dasgupta in that case complainant may appear before the Civil Court for proper relief.  But anyhow the present complaint is not maintainable as same is hopelessly time barred and for which the present complaint is not maintainable.

          Thus the complaint fails.

          Hence, it is

                                                              ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost against the ops as the present complaint is barred by limitation u/s 24A of C.P. Act 1986.