Haryana

Jind

178/2014

Krishan Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Life Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. S. K. Singla

07 Oct 2015

ORDER

                                   

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.

                                           Complaint No. 178 of 2014

   Date of Institution: 24.12.2014

   Date of final order: 14.10.2015

 

Smt. Krishna Devi w/o late Raj Kumar Goel, M/s Jyoti Sales Agency near Rajbaha No.7 Rohtak road, Jind, District Jind.     

                                                             ….Complainant.

                                       Versus

1.     Life Insurance Corporation Ltd. Through Senior Divisional

 Manager, LIC, Division Office, Karnal.

2.     Manager, LIC, Jind, District Jind. 

                                                         …..Opposite parties.

                          Complaint under section 12 of

                          Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Before: Smt. Bimla Sheokand,  Presiding Member.

            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.

 

Present: Sh. S.K. Singla, Adv. for complainant.

             Sh. R.S. Sindhwani, Adv. for opposite parties.

            

ORDER:

            The brief facts in the complaint are that  complainant’s husband Raj Kumar Goel had insured his life for a sum of Rs.50,000/- vide policy No.170747166 dated 15.9.1993, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- vide policy No.173393856 dated 28.8.2002 and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- vide policy No. 172783584 dated 28.4.2001 with the opposite parties. The complainant is nominee of the above said three policies. The husband of complainant deposited the premium

                        Krishna Devi Vs. LIC etc.

                                        …2…

of the above said policies with the opposite parties.  As per terms and conditions of the policy in any mis-happen/accident, the opposite parties are to be paid the double benefit of the policy. The complainant’s husband was expired on 17.9.2012 due to shooting and a case FIR No. 560 dated 17.9.2012 under Sections 302/120B, 34 IPC & 25 of Arms Act 1959 was registered in P.S. City, Jind. As per terms and conditions of the policies the opposite parties are to pay the double benefit of the policies along with other all benefits but the opposite parties  paid only the single benfit of the policies to the complainant.  The complainant submitted the claim file along with all the relevant documents with the opposite parties.The complainant visited the office of opposite parties several times and requested to give the remaining amount of double benefits of the policies but the opposite parties did not pay any heed on the request of the complainant.  Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to pay the remaining amount of double benefit of the above said three policies  as well as to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant.  

2.     Upon notice, the opposite parties have appeared and filed the written statement stating in the preliminary objections i.e. the complainant  has no cause of action and  locus-standi  to file the present complaint; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint, the complaint is not maintainable in

                        Krishna Devi Vs. LIC etc.

                                        …3…

the present forum and the complaint is false, frivolous, malicious and  vexatious . On merits, it is contended that as per judgment dated 23.8.2014 passed by the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Jind, it is a case of intentional murder and intentional murder does not come within the definition of the accident. The basic death claim under all the policies have already been paid through NEFT to the nominee. The complainant is not entitled any other benefits of the above said policies.  All the other allegations have been denied by the opposite parties. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Dismissal of complaint with costs of Rs.25,000/- is prayed for.

3.     In evidence, the complainant has produced her own affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of letter dated 1.12.2012 Ex. C-2, copy of  application Ex. C-3, copy of letter dated 20.11.2014 Ex. C-4, copies of  policy schedules Ex. C-5 to C-7, copies of status report Ex. C-8 to C-10, copy of death certificate Ex. C-11, copy of  order dated 23.8.2014 and 27.8.2014 Ex. C-12 and  copies of FSL reports Ex. C-13 to C-15 and closed the evidence.  On the other hand, the opposite parties have produced the copies of policy schedule Ex. OP-1 and OP-2, copy of form No.3801 Ex. OP-3, copy of letter dated 20.11.2014 Ex. OP-4, copy of order dated 23.8.2014 and 27.8.2014 Ex. OP-5 and affidavit of Balihar Singh, Manager Ex. OP-6 and closed the evidence.

4.     We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file.Ld. counsel of

                        Krishna Devi Vs. LIC etc.

                                        …4…

complainant has argued that husband of the complainant had purchased three policies and the complainant is nominee of the above said three policies. The husband of the complainant expired due to firing in his shop and ultimately criminal case was decided by the honourable Criminal Court of Law and the culprits were connicted. The complainant filed the claim as per policy to get double benefit, as the murder comes within the ambit of accident. But the opposite parties sanctioned only single benefit i.e. assured amount of the policy saying that the murter of the diseased is intentional murder.

5.     After hearing both the Ld. Counsels. In our views Ld. Counsel of opposite parties was not able to prove that such type of murder does not fall under the accident. Also as per F.I.R. lodged by the son of the deceased Sh. Raj Kumar Goel, the accused entered their shop in the late evening and started quarreling with him and during this course the accused opened firing upon his father and ultimately killed him. As per authority cited by the complainant counsel under NCDRC,New Delhi in the case of Daya Rani and others Vs. LIC of India that Murder falls in the category of Accident.  Vide Revision Petition No.482 of 2005. Also the case of Ganga Ram Rai Vs. LIC of India & others CPJ (2015) page No.313 NC, the Hon’able NCDRC New Delhi has ordered that “Even a willful murder is described as an accident as per insurance policy is concerned.”

6.       After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the  view that deficieny in service is established on the part of the

                             Krishna Devi Vs. LIC etc.

                                        …5…

opposite parties. The complaint of the complainant is accepted  and is entitled to receive the double benefit of the policy.  The opposite parties  are directed to give the double benefit of the above said three policies to the complainant within  one month after receiving the certified copyof this order. In case of failure, the opposite parties will pay a simple interest of 9% p.a. to the complainant w.e.f. filing of the complaint i.e. 24.12.2014 till its full realization of amount.  Litigation fee amounting to Rs.2100/- is also to be paid to the complainant.   Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

  Announced on: 14.10.2015

                                                                Presiding, Member

 Member                                    District Consumer Disputes                                                          Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

                         

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present: Sh. S.K. Singla, Adv. for complainant.

             Sh. R.S. Sindhwani, Adv. for opposite parties.

              Arguments heard. To come up on 14.10.2015 for orders.

 

                                                                Presiding, Member

                Member                                     DCDRF, Jind

                                                                   12.10.2015

Present: Sh. S.K. Singla, Adv. for complainant.

             Sh. R.S. Sindhwani, Adv. for opposite parties.

            Order announced. Vide our order of even date, the complaint of the complainant is allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

                                                                Presiding, Member

                Member                                     DCDRF, Jind

                                                                   14.10.2015