Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 31.08.2010
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay rest amount Rs. 3,00,000/- with 12% interest.
- To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only ) as compensation as well as litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he is the nominee of insured Sri Naresh Mahto who died due to accidental death in respect of which an F.I.R. was lodged by sub inspector Mr. Dhurandhar Kumar Singh on 19.01.2005. The said Sri Naresh Mahto had taken a group personal accidental policy with the opposite party for the period of 23.07.2004 to 22.07.2007 under which the total sum assured was Rs. 5,00,000/-.
It is further case of complainant that after accidental death of Sri Naresh Mahto, the F.I.R. was lodged on 19.01.2005 and as his dead body was thrown near road after completing all the formalities, the dead body was sent for post mortem examination to Arrah Sadar Hospital. After conducting the post mortem report the dead body was sent to lawaris sewa Kendra Arrah. In the mean time the complainant came to know about the accident and after enquiring from police station he came to lawaris sewa Kendra Arrah where the dead body was kept. The complainant recognized the dead body of his father and received the dead body from sewa Kendra for further step.
It is also case of the complainant that he informed the opposite party for payment of insured amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- but the opposite party agreed to pay only Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant after 5 years. Opposite party have taken lot of coercive bargaining between 2005 to 2009. The complainant find no option but to accept the discharge voucher without reading any content of the agreement paper due to personal problem as well as coercion by the opposite party. After receiving the discharge voucher the complainant immediately filed a protest letter on the next day i.e. on 24.09.2009 to opposite party no. 3 and the complainant also filed representation for rest of the amount to opposite party no. 3 but no action has been taken.
On behalf of opposite party no. 1 and 2 a written statement cum written note have been filed in para – 10 of which it has been asserted that the complainant has voluntarily “ out of court’ settlement as per terms and condition described in the affidavit dated 10.08.2009 and he has executed discharge voucher towards full and final settlement.
The leaned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant had made protest after receiving the amount pursuant to the discharge voucher because he was made to sign on discharge voucher under coercion. Hence the complainant is entitled to receive rest of the insured amount i.e. Rs. 3,00,000/-.
On behalf of opposite parties it has submitted that as the complainant has voluntarily entered in compromise/settlement and has received the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- voluntarily hence he is not entitled to challenge the compromise or settlement in any court of law.
It has been further asserted that the aforesaid amount was given by way of final settlement and as such this complaint be dismissed with cost.
We have heard both parties in detail. The fact asserted by the parties have been narrated in the foregoing paragraphs.
On behalf of complainant several papers have been submitted with the complaint petition which has been annexed by way of annexure 1 series. These documents are F.I.R report of A.S.I. of Sri Dhurandhar Kumar Singh dated 19.01.2005, final report bearing no. 90/05 dated 30.05.2005, post mortem report, death certificate, insurance certificate and discharge voucher which have been marked as annexure – 1 series and application to opposite party no. 3 has been marked as annexure A – 2.
On behalf of opposite party no. 1 and 2 also an affidavit dated 29.08.2009 sworn by complainant, a letter of the opposite party dated 02.09.2009 as well as a letter dated 06.11.2009 etc. have been annexed which are on the record.
The only thing is to be decided in this case that whether receiving the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- after executing and signing discharge voucher etc. as well as affidavit and receiving the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of full and final settlement, the complainant can put further claim in this regard before this forum or not.
It is needless to say that the complainant has received the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards full and final settlement but it is also the fact that within 24 hrs of final settlement the complainant has filed a protest letter dated 24.09.2009 before opposite party no. 3 since then the complainant is pursuing this matter.
It is the case of the complainant that he has executed certain documents and entered in final settlement under coercion. In decision reported in I (2006) CPJ 98 (Del) Delhi High Court, J.R. Midha. J. Worldfa Export Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has recently held that a person after entering final settlement has right to agitate the matter before appropriate forum i.e. court in view of the recent notification of the IRDA.
We think it proper to narrate the relevant paragraph of Hon’ble High Court, Delhi which is as follows “ the insurance companies cannot deny the payment of the admitted claim amount to the insured unless a complete discharge is given by the insured. The insistence of the insurance company to sign a discharge voucher of full and final settlement before release of admitted claim amounts to coercion and undue influence as defined in section 15 and 16 of the contract Act and such contracts are voidable under section 19 and 19A the contact Act.
The withholding of the admitted amount by the insurance companies unless complete discharge is given, amount to deficiency in service within the meaning of section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the insurance companies are not expected to withhold the admitted claim amount till the insured gives the receipt of full and final settlement.
It is needless to say that aforementioned decision of the Hon’ble Court is based on the circular issued by IRDA on 24.09.2015 which has been mentioned in this decision. In this circular insurer has been advised by IRDA as follows. Accordingly insurer are hereby admitted as under: “ where the liability and quantum of claim under a policy is established, the insurers shall not withhold claim amounts. However, it should be clearly understood that execution of such voucher does not foreclose the right of policy holder to seek higher compensation before any judicial for a or any other for a established by law.”
It goes without saying that as per assertion of the complainant and from perusal of annexure – 1 series it is crystal clear that insurance company has accepted all the documents of the complainant and has paid Rs. 2,00,000/- instead of Rs. 5,00,000/- without assigning any reason why the lesser amount has been made. The complainant had also protested the conduct of insurance company ( opposite party no. 1 , 2 and 3) by filing a application within 24 hrs of receiving the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- which shows that the aforesaid amount was received by the complainant under coercion.
No purpose will be served in repeating the same fact again and again.
For the discussion made above we find and hold that by not paying full amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- despite accepting all the documents of the complainant the opposite party no. 1 and 2 have committed gross deficiency in service.
In view of the facts asserted above we direct the opposite party no. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally to pay rest due amount of insurance policy i.e. Rs. 3,00,000/- to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which the opposite parties will have to pay an interest @ 9% till it final payment.
Opposite party no. 1 and 2 are further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of two months.
Accordingly this case stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
Member President
