Haryana

Kurukshetra

282/2016

Parabhjeet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ram LIC - Opp.Party(s)

B.L.Bansal

25 Jul 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint no. 282 of 2016.

Date of instt. 13.10.2016. 

                                                                    Date of Decision: 25.07.2019.

 

1. Parabhjeet Kaur w/o late Sh. Gurbachan Singh, resident of village Nalvi, Tehsil Shahabad, District Kurukshetra. 
2. Jasleen (minor) (Date of Birth 13.09.2015) D/o Sh. Lakhwinder Singh, through her grandmother Parabhjeet Kaur, being natural guardian and next friend, who has got no adverse interest against the minor, resident of village Nalvi, Tehsil Shahabad, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                ……….Complainants.    

                        Versus

 

1. Branch Manager Shri Ram Life Insurance Company Shahabad Markanda, District Kurukshetra.

 

2. Branch Manager Muthoot Group, Railway Road, Shahabad Markanda, District Kurukshetra.

 

3. Reena Rani D/o Mehar Chand, R/o village Jansui, Tehsil and District Ambala, now at Nalvi, Tehsil Shahabad, District Kurukshetra.

 

..………Opposite parties.

 

       Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                Ms. Neelam, Member. 

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member                                          

Present:     Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for complainants.            

 Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for opposite party No.1.

 Opposite party no.2 given up.

 Opposite party no.3 exparte.

           

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Smt. Parabhjeet Kaur against Branch Manager, Shri Ram Life Insurance Company and others, the opposite parties.

2.             It is stated in the complaint that son of complainant namely Lakhwinder Singh @ Jagjeet Singh was insured by the ops for the sum of Rs.one lac on 5.3.2015, insuring his life and physical/ mental ailment disorder etc. for one year and the required premium had been duly paid by son of complainant. The amount under the said policy was payable to said Lakhwinder Singh alongwith accruing interest, dividend, bonus etc. and in case of his death during the said period of one year, the entire amount of Rs.one lac including all other benefits was payable immediately to the legal heirs of Lakhwinder Singh. It is further averred that in the said policy, nominee was his wife Reena Rani. However, unfortunately Lakhwinder Singh died on 31.8.2015 due to sudden and accidental drowning in a river on 30.8.2015. Dead body of son of complainant was recovered from Khanjarpur Head River on 31.8.2015 and FIR was accordingly registered. That said Lakhwinder Singh died leaving behind the complainant as his mother, his daughter Jasleen and Reena Rani as widow. However, Reena Rani left the matrimonial house and started living with her parents though his daughter Jasleen is living with the complainant. In this regard Reena Rani sworn an affidavit according to which she released all rights and liabilities from her matrimonial house as well as from her daughter Jasleen. It is further averred that the complainant and her grand daughter Jasleen are entitled to the amount accruing under the above said policy of son of complainant. That the complainant approached the ops several times for claiming the amount under the said policy alongwith all benefits, however, the ops have been putting her off on one pretext or the other and have not made the payment under the said policy. That thereafter, the complainant served a legal notice upon the ops on 4.8.2016 but the ops paid no heed to it. Thus, there is great deficiency in service on the part of ops towards the complainant and they have harassed the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.             It is pertinent to mention here that on 8.3.2019 complaiannt moved an application for impleading Jasleen minor daughter of Sh. Lakhwinder Singh as complainant no.2 which was allowed and amended title was filed.

4.             On notice, opposite parties no.1 and 2 appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections that complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts, that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute involved in the complaint in as much as it is not a consumer dispute and does not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and is exclusively triable by the Civil Court, that no cause of action has arisen to the complainant against the answering op and as such complaint is not maintainable, that complaint is bad for mis joinder of the parties and non joinder of the parties and that complaint is stopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. On merits, it is submitted that complainant was not insured with answering op. No original policy and its documents have been provided by the complainant to answering op till date. The complainant also not mentioned even policy number in complaint. It is further submitted that however on production of policy and other documents, answering op reserves its right to file amended written statement. All other contents of the complaint are also denied.

5.             Thereafter, op no.1 filed amended written statement raising preliminary objections regarding no cause of action and locus standi, maintainability, jurisdiction, concealment of true and material facts and that complainant has no locus standi to make the complaint as she is not the Nominee under the policy. As per Section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938 only the nominee under the policy can claim the money secured by the policy in event of death of the policy holder. It is further submitted that Mr. Lakhwinder Singh had taken policy of op no.1 through op no.2 for insured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- commencing from 5.3.2015 on a premium amount of Rs.222/- and nominee was his spouse Mrs. Reena Rani. The policy was for a period of one year from the commencement date. It is further submitted that op insurance company did not receive any death intimation either from the nominee/ complainant or from op no.2 i.e. the Master policy holder by submitting death certificate of the deceased member-life assured as such, the claim is not registered in the records of op no.1. Therefore, the claim is not yet processed. As such, it cannot be said that there is a deficiency in service on the part of op- insurance company. The complainant did not follow the procedure for processing the death claim benefit amounts from this op and she vehemently and vaguely approached this Forum with all false allegations and without following proper procedure of the company norms in lodging the death claim. As per clause 7, the master policy holder, the nominee or legal heir, as the case may be, may give them a written notice of the claim on the member’s demise. The claim should be intimated by master policy holder within 180 days from the date of death. It is further submitted that on receipt of notice from this Forum only, this op insurance company came to know about the death of the life assured Mr. Lakhwinder Singh under COI Nos. M0003-00001814 wherein it is mentioned that member life assured died on 31.8.2015, otherwise, this op is not in the knowledge about the death of the member life assured prior to the date of receipt of the notice. That this op intimated to op no.2 i.e. Master policy holder regarding the death of member life assured and in response to the same, the op no.2 replied on 29.4.2019 stating that the complainant was informed about the procedure of the claim and requested for submission of the documents from the nominee and same was refused by her.  It is further submitted that if the complainant would have submitted the claim form or intimation alongwith the required supporting documents to the op- insurance company, then the op immediately after receipt of the said intimation would have processed the claim as per norms. Remaining contents of the complaint are denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

6.             Op no.2 in separate written statement took certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that whole matter is concerned with op no.1 and just on the request of complainant, the answering op advised the complainant for completing the requirements required by op no.1. The complainant has not fulfilled the formalities required as per rules of op no.1. The complainant used to approach the answering op whereas each time she was advised to approach the op no.1. The complainant only requested answering op to submit the documents in the office of op no.1 being old aged lady on which she was again advised to submit required documents in the office of answering op as well as op no.1 and without which it was not possible for op no.1 to settle the claim. The complainant was also advised many times by the answering op to get the consent of the daughter in law Reena Rani nominee as well as minor child of deceased Lakhwinder Singh or to get the succession order from the competent court but the complainant has not done any needful till date. It is further submitted that no orders regarding the custody of Jasleen are also presented till date. As per the communication with the op no.1, op no.1 is duty bound to protect the right of other legal heirs and was always ready to settle the claim but it is only the complainant who only always delayed the matter for her known motive. Remaining contents of complained are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

7.             OP no.3 not appeared despite the fact that her father appeared and requested a date for producing his daughter and as such op no.3 was proceeded against exparte. Thereafter, Op no.2 was given up by learned counsel for complainant.

8.             The complainant produced affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexures C1 to C15. On the other hand, learned counsel for op no.1 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1 and documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.

9.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

10.            It is an admitted fact between the parties that son of complainant Smt. Parabhjeet Kaur and father of Jasleen complainant no.2 namely Lakhwinder Singh since deceased got insured his life with the opposite party no.1 for the sum assured of Rs.one lac on 5.3.2015 and Smt. Reena his wife was appointed as nominee in the said policy. Said Lakhwinder Singh died on 31.8.2015 due to accidental drowning in a river and his death certificate is placed on file by complainant as Ex.C3. Post mortem examination on the dead body of Lakhwinder Singh was also conducted and post mortem report is placed on file as Ex.C4 in which cause of death is mentioned as sudden drowning in the canal. A DDR bearing No.12 dated 31.8.2015 was also registered in Police Station Jhansa in this regard and copy of the same is placed on file as Ex.C14. Though op no.3 wife of Lakhwinder Singh is nominee in the said policy but she has failed to appear before the Forum and opted to be proceeded against exparte. The father of Smt. Reena appeared on her behalf and requested a date to produce her in the Forum but she did not appear. As such it is clear that she has no objection if the insured amount is released in favour of the complainants being the legal heirs of deceased Lakhwinder Singh. No doubt, Smt. Reena being nominee was entitled to the insured amount after the death of her husband Lakhwinder Singh but she has left her husband house and has also relinquished her all rights from the husband house including her daughter Jasleen as is evident from copy of her affidavit Ex.C11 and affidavit Ex.C13 and after the nominee, Smt. Parabhjeet Kaur mother of deceased Lakhwinder Singh and his daughter Jasleen who is living with her grandmother are entitled to the sum assured. However, it will be in the interest of justice if the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is shared between Smt. Parabhjeet Kaur mother of deceased, Jasleen minor daughter of deceased and Smt. Reena being legally wedded wife/ widow of deceased since there is no order of any competent court of law about their separation. The opposite party no.1 is legally bound to pay the sum insured of Rs.one lac after the death of deceased insured Lakhwinder Singh to his legal heirs i.e. Smt. Parabhjeet Kaur, Jasleen complainants as well as to Smt. Reena and there is no legal impediment against the ops to pay insured amount to them. In our view, Smt. Parabhjeet Kaur and Jasleen are entitled to equal share of 35% each i.e. total 70% of the amount of Rs.one lac and Smt. Reena is entitled to the remaining amount of 30% of the insured amount of Rs.one lac.

11.            In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 to pay an amount of Rs.35,000/- each to Smt. Parabhjeet Kaur and Jasleen Kaur complainant and to pay remaining amount of Rs.30,000/- to Smt. Reena within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The amount of the share of minor Jasleen shall be kept in a nationalized bank by way of FDR till she attains the age of majority. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

 

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.: 25.7.2019 

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Neelam)           (Sunil Mohan Trikha)        

                Member                     Member