DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:401 of 2010] Date of Institution : 01.07.2010 Date of Decision : 14.09.2011 --------------------------------------- Smt. Charanjit Kaur W/o Late Sh. Dilbagh Singh resident of Village Sanata, Tehsil and District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohai (Punjab). ---Complainant. V E R S U S Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jeevan Parkash Building, Sector 17B, Branch Chandigarh. ---Opposite Party. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESI DENT SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: None for the complainant. Sh. Vinod Verma, Advocate for the OP. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Smt. Charanjit Kaur widow of Sh. Dilbagh Singh has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein for the following directions to OPs:- i) To pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- being the insured amount on the death of Sh. Dilbagh Singh; ii) To pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; iii) To pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as costs of litigation. 2. In brief the case of the complainant is that her husband took a LIC Policy No.162697909 for Rs.60,000/- on 26.7.2004. During his lifetime, her husband used to pay the premium at irregular intervals. According to the complainant, the policy was lastly revived on 11.7.2006 by paying installment of Rs.3,200/-. According to the complainant, unfortunately, Sh. Dilbagh Singh died on 12.7.2006 (Copy of the Death Certificate is annexed as Annexure C-2). The complainant filed the claim with all the papers with the OP Insurance Company. On 3.2.2010, she enquired from OP about the status of the her claim and the same was still shown to be pending with the OP. Thereafter, the complainant served a legal notice on 22.2.2010 upon the OP but to no avail. According to the complainant, non settlement of the death claim of her husband amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been fled by the complainant seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. On the other hand, in their written reply filed by OP, a specific preliminary objection has been raised as regards the limitation for filing the complaint. According to OP, the claim regarding insured amount on the death of Sh. Dilbagh Singh was repudiated on 31.3.2007 and the present complaint was filed on 30.6.2010 i.e. after a period of 3 years and 3 months from the date of repudiation of the claim. Thus, according to OP, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed being barred by limitation. 4. On merits, the factum of issuance of Policy No.162697909 for Rs.60,000/- on 26.7.2004 in the name of Sh. Dilbagh Singh has been admitted. It has been pleaded that the premium due upto 26.07.2005 was paid by Sh. Dilbagh Singh (Life Assured) during his life time. According to OP, on investigation, it was found that the Life Assured died on 10.7.2006 as is clear from the entry of the Register Asthiya Performa (Annexure R-2). The three quarterly premiums from 26.10.2005 to 26.4.2006 were paid on 11.7.2006 i.e. after the death of Sh. Dilbagh Singh. It has been asserted that the date in the Death Certificate was fraudulently procured to justify the death claim. According to OP, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 5. None appeared on behalf of the complainant on the date of final hearing i.e. 13.09.2011 and therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the present complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the OP and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 7. The first argument advanced by the learned counsel for the OP is that the complaint is barred by limitation. 8. OP has placed on record a copy of letter dated 31.03.2007 vide which the death claim of Sh. Dilbagh Singh was repudiated. This letter was duly sent to the complainant as per entry made in Outward Mail Register (Annexure R-5) and was received by one Mewa Ram. Thus, it is proved on record that the repudiation letter was in the knowledge of the complainant. Therefore, the cause of action for filing the present complaint accrued to the complainant on 31.3.2007, when the claim was repudiated. The present complaint was filed on 01.07.2010 i.e. after more than three years from the date on which the cause of action accrued to the complainant. In our considered view, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed being barred by limitation. 9. On merits also, the case of OP is that the life assured had expired on 10.7.2010 as per the entry of the Register Asthiya Performa (Annexure R-2). It is argued by the learned counsel for the OP that the date in the Death Certificate placed on record by the complainant is a procured one to justify the death claim. He further argued that the premium was paid on 11.7.2011 by the complainant for reviving the said policy in the name of her husband. Therefore, on 10.7.2010 the policy in question was in lapsed condition and the factum of death of Sh. Dilbag Singh was concealed by the complainant from the OP. 10. To clinch the point in issue as regards the date of death of the life assured, the two relevant documents on record are Annexure R-2 and R-3. From bare perusal of Annexure R-2, which is certified copy of entry of the Register Asthiya Performa, it is proved that the life assured namely Sh. Dilbagh Singh died on 10.7.2006. This entry bears Serial No.20532 dated 12.7.2006. The other relevant document is Annexure R-3, which is a copy of affidavit dated 19.10.2009 of the complainant Smt. Charanjit Kaur herself wherein in Para No.1, she has specifically deposed that her husband had expired on 10.7.2006. Admittedly the last installment was deposited on 11.7.2006 i.e. after the death of the life assured. Thus, from these two documents, it is proved on record that the policy stood lapsed on 10.7.2006 i.e. the day life assured expired. 11. From the above discussion, it is proved on record that the policy had lapsed on the day the life assured (Sh. Dilbagh Singh) had expired i.e. on 10.7.2006. Hence, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of OP in repudiating the death claim of the husband of the complainant. 12. In view of the above findings, the complaint is dismissed being barred by time and even on merits, with no order as to costs. 13. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 14th September 2011. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
C.C.No.401 of 2010 Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 13.09.2011. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been dismissed. Announced. 09.09.2011 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
