A-2100/2017

14-2-2023

O R D E R

BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Heard the arguments from respondent. Since from long time, the appellant is not present and not submitted his arguments.

2. The learned advocate for respondent submits that the husband of the complainant had obtained a unit linked policy with the Opposite Party. During the policy in force, the husband of the complainant died. By virtue of the policy, the complainant claimed for assured amount along with fund value of the policy, but the appellant had settled the claim only by paying assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and not paid fund value. For which, the complainant approached the District Consumer Commission alleging deficiency in service and claimed for the fund value to the tune of Rs.86,672/-.  After trail, the District Consumer Commission allowed the complaint. But even after direction given by the District Consumer Commission, the Opposite Parties have not complied. Instead of comply; the appellant has preferred this appeal. Hence prays to dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant.   

3.      On perusal of the certified copy of the order, memorandum of appeal and other documents produced before this Commission, we noticed that there is no dispute the husband of complainant had obtained a unit linked policy from the Opposite Party called “Flexi Save Plus – Birla Sun Life” policy for assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is also not in dispute that the husband of complainant died during the policy is in force and there is dispute that the appellant had paid an assured amount as per the policy, but they have not paid the fund value as per the terms and conditions of the policy. We noticed the Clause 5/Ex.C5-the terms and conditions of the policy, where the appellant has under taken to pay the fund value along with assured amount in case of death of the insured. It reads that, in case of death “Full sum assured along with policy value is payable”. We noticed here that no reasons are assigned for nonpayment of the fund value to the complainant.

4. The District Consumer Commission after trial has rightly appreciated the pleadings from both parties and arrived for payment of Rs.86,672/- from this appellant. We found the order passed by the District Consumer Commission is in accordance with law and as per terms and conditions of the policy.

5. It is clear case of deficiency in service on the part of this appellant in not paying the fund value to the complainant as per the policy terms.

6. The appellant is under obligation to pay the fund value of Rs.86,672/-, hence we do not find any merits in the appeal. No interference is required in the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, as there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the order passed by the District Consumer Commission is confirmed.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following:-

O R D E R

The appeal is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same to the complainant.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.

Member                                    Judicial Member