Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1200/2012

Satish singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

23 Nov 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/1200/12                            Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Satish Singh,

S/o Sh. Kartar Singh,

R/o H.No.401, Dichaon Kalan,

Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043

……..COMPLAINANT

      

VERSUS

1. Branch Manager,

Birla Sun life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

204, Ashok Estate, 24, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, Delhi-110001

 

2. Branch Manager,

Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

T1, T2, T21, T22, 3^rd floor,

Plot no.13, Manish Mega Plaza,

Sector-5 Market, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075

 

3. General Manager,

Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

6^th Floor, Vaman Centre,

Makhwana Road, Marol Naka,

Off: Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East),

Mumbai-400059

                                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

              

The Complaint pertains to deficiency on the part of OP in repudiating claim under the policy.

The complainant is a nominee of the life insurance policy of deceased mother of complainant issued by OP on 24.02.09. She died on 12.07.12. The complainant filed a claim with OP, for the insured sum. The OP repudiated the policy on the ground that in the proposal age of mother was grossly understated and that the property was not in her name. Complainant represented, but it was not considered. Therefore this complaint of deficiency in service against OP insurance Company.

The OP did not file any reply though it set aside earlier exparte order in appeal to State Commission. It was again proceeded exparte.

We have considered the exparte evidence and the correspondence between the nominee and insurance company. The proposal form is also placed on record. There is no dispute on the validity of policy. The proposal form has shown the date of birth of deceased 12.01.65, based on PAN Card details. After considering the entire evidence & case of the nominee, we find that OP has repudiated the claim arbitrarily. In our view once, OP has accepted the date of birth based on PAN card details of date of birth; it cannot question the same at the time of reimbursement. It was for them to exercise due diligence at that time, or asked other proof. It is common knowledge that older generation has no formal proof of birth certificate etc, and age is based on oral information recorded in school or other certificates. OP has not brought any evidence, to show material with it to show any other date. In our view, in any event, this is no fundamental breach of policy, nor suppression nor the ground that property belong to same or not mother, as to deny the claim.

The OP has acted just to harass the complainant in rendering services, having accepted premium. We hold OP deficient in rendering services and direct it to pay the insured sum under the policy as per term & conditions with interest of 9% from date of claim by nominee. We also award a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment & litigation expenses.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken against OP under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

        Pronounced in open Court on 23.11.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER