Haryana

Panchkula

cc/157R/2014

PARAS RAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAX LIFE INSURANCE - Opp.Party(s)

14 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                                    

Consumer Complaint No	:	157 of 2014
Date of Institution	:	21.08.2014
Date of Decision	:	14.02.2017

                                                                                                                 

Paras Ram s/o Sh.Hari Chand, aged 61 years, R/o House No.22, Village Tagra Hakimpur, Kalka, Distt. Panchkula.

                                                                                                            ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Max Life Insurance having its office at 11^th Floor, DLF Square, Jacaranda Marg, DLF, Phase-II, Gurgaon, Haryana.

2.         Axis Bank, 1090/3-A, Bharat Nagar, Kalka, Distt. Panchkula through its Manager.

                                                                                          ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                       Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

                  Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

 

For the Parties:         Mr.Anirudh Kush, Advocate, for the complainant. 

                                    Mr. Nitesh Singhi, Advocate for the OP No. 1.

Defence of Op No.2 already struck of.

 

ORDER

(Anita Kapoor, Member)

 

1. Initially, the complainant filed a complaint before this Forum which was allowed. The OP no. 1 filed an appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission as first appeal No.336 of 2015 which was allowed vide order dated 15.09.2015 and the order passed by this Forum was set aside. The case was remanded to this Forum with the direction to issue notice to both the parties and to proceed further in accordance with law.
2. The complainant is real brother of deceased Gurdev Singh who was un-married and who had obtained life insurance cover on 07.03.2011 from OP No.1 and had named the former as the nominee thereunder in the insurance documentation Annexure C-2. The deceased was maintaining a savings account with OP No.2 and it is the officials of OP No.2 only who had allured him into obtaining that life insurance policy. Gurdev Singh died on 07.08.2013 (Annexure C-3). The refusal by the OPs to pay up the claim under the insurance policy impelled the filing of this complaint by the complainant.
3. The Op No. 1 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement. It is submitted that Max life Insurance Company Limited has changed its name from “Max New York Life Insurance Company Limited” to “Max Life Insurance Company Limited” after getting necessary approvals from Registrar of Companies/Concerned Authorities and so it is now known as “Max Life Insurance Company Limited”. It is denied that the complainant never lodged any claim with regard to Policy No. 846714293. It is submitted that the complaint was lodged by the complainant under the policy No. 853373777 and 855830279 and not under the policy in question. It is submitted that the complainant was bound to lodge the claim under the policy No. 846714293 but till the filing of the complaint, the complainant had not lodged any claim under the policy. It is submitted that to pursue the claim it was mandatory to lodge the claim with the insurance company i.e answering Ops but the complainant never lodged the claim or never submitted that required documents with regard to the policy in question. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Op No. 1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The OP No. 2 appeared on 31.05.2016 and sought time for filing written statement and the case was adjourned to 17.06.2016 for filing written statement alongwith entire evidence. On 17.06.2016, OP No. 2 sought time for filing written statement and case was adjourned to 01.07.2016 for filing written statement alongwith entire evidence. On 01.07.2016, OP No. 2 again sought time for filing written statement and the case was adjourned to 15.07.2016 for filing written statement alongwith entire evidence. On 15.07.2016, the counsel for the OP No. 3 again sought adjournment for filing written statement. As per Section 13 (2) (a) CP Act, the opposite party no. 2 has to give his version in the case within a period of 30 days or such extended period not excluding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Forum. The Op No. 2 has failed to file the written statement within stipulated period. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 10941-10942 of 2013 titled as New India Assurance Co. Vs. Hilli multipurpose cold storage Pvt. Ltd. dated 04.12.2015, the defence of the OP No. 2 was struck off.
5. The counsel for complainant made a statement that the evidence of the complainant is already on record and he does not want to file further evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the OP No. 1 has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R1/A alongwith documents Annexure R1/1 to R1/5 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
7. The complaint, wherein ex-parte proceedings had been ordered against the Op No.1 vide order dated 29.09.2014, had been allowed by this Forum vide order dated 11.12.2014.
8. The Hon’ble State Consumer Commission has allowed the appeal and directed this Forum to decide the complaint afresh after taking on record the counter of OP NO.1.
9. While challenging the maintainability of the complaint on an averment that the complainant is not a consumer within the definition therefore under Consumer Protection Act and also challenging the correctness of averment qua deficiency in service, the Op No.1 averred the complaint to be pre-mature as the complainant never lodged any claim with regard to the policy No.846714293.
10. The complainant has not filed any rejoinder in order to rebut the averments made in the counter.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the appearing parties and perused the documentation placed on file.
12. The Op No.1 has made a categorical averment that the complainant lodged a claim with regard to the policy No.85337377 and 855830279 but that he never lodged any claim regarding policy No.846714293. The averments are buttressed by an affidavit.
13. As against it, the complainant has not controverted the averment by filing a rejoinder. It is not that the compulsive filing of a rejoinder is conceptualised presently under the applicable procedural law but it too is apparent that an averment in the counter can be controverted only by filing a rejoinder thereto which has not been done by the complainant in this case.
14. We would, accordingly direct the complainant to lodge a claim with regard to policy No.846714293 with Op No.1 within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On the claim being lodged, the Op No.1 shall process it within one month thereafter. We feel impelled to grant this direction in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, and in the larger interests of justice, particularly in the context of the object of the consumer friendly legislation CPA which conceptualisis expeditious disposal.
15. While disposing of the complaint thereby, we make it clear that nothing indicted herein would affect the merits of the processing of the claim to be lodged by the complainant herein.
16. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

 

 

Announced

14.02.2017                            ANITA KAPOOR           DHARAM PAL

                                                MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

 

 

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

     

                                         

                                                                        ANITA KAPOOR

                                                            MEMBER