DATE OF FILING: 27.01.2017
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 04.05.2018
Sri Karuna Kar Nayak, President.
The complainant Smt. Pramila Sahu has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties ( in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of her grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that Smt. Pramila Sahu w/o Kamaraju Sahu is the mother and nominee of his deceased son namely Subrat Kumar Sahu, who was insured by Reliance Life Insurance vide Policy No.50681071 on dated 09.01.2013 paying an amount of Rs.22,000/-. Unfortunately her son Subrat Kumar Sahu by heart stoke on 20.05.2015. After collecting the relevant documents, the father of deceased Shri Kamraju Sahu intimated to the aforesaid company on dated 18.07.2015 regarding the death of the policy holder. After perusal of that application by the Insurance Company sent information on dated 04.09.2016 that the mother of the deceased, namely Pramila Sahu is the nominee in that policy and advised to supply all the relevant documents to their office. Getting such information the complainant submitted all required documents with a prescribed format. At the time of verification it was found that no policy bond was supplied to late Subrat Kumar Sahu instead of depositing sum of Rs.22,000/- as premium and it was found that deceased Subrat intimated to the said office on 26.09.2014 after not getting the policy bond. The policy bond was not provided to the insured and several approaches made by the deceased amounts to mental cruelty and physical torture. Till his death policy bond could not reach near him which presumes that the policy holder was not aware of the terms and conditions of the policy. Finally the complainant had been to the office of the Reliance Insurance Company where the company officials misguided hewer and assured her to pay the compensation amount immediately after signing some papers which were fraudulently done by the company to hide the mistakes of insurance company. Though the complainant is a paradarsini lady, simple in nature, could not understand the malafide intention of the insurance officials. After death of her son, her husband repeatedly requested to the Insurance Officials for the bond of the policy and the receipt but the insurance officials did not heed to it. By which the complainant moved under section 6(1) of RTI Act 2005 on 28.09.2016 but Insurance Officials did not provide any kind of information. Hence an appeal U/S 7 (1)/19(1) of RTI was filed. Till to date there is no response. This process implies, the Insurance Company is absolutely liable in the eyes of law for the deficiency of service at a large for which they are not showing any kind of interest to help the complainant, as well as the widow wife of the deceased with his two minor children who are living in a lot of financial crises. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay claim amount of Rs.2,39,000/- under policy No:50681071 with 18% interest from 18.07.2015, compensation of Rs.36,000/- for harassment and causing mental agony, Rs.5000/- towards litigation cost in the best interest of justice.
3. Upon notice the O.Ps filed version through his advocates. It is stated that the present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless, frivolous, vexatious and scurrilous which is unsustainable in the eyes of law and has been filed without any justified reason/cause against the O.P.No.1 &2 just to harass, defame and extort illegal sum of money from O.Ps, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The Deceased Life Assured named Mr. Subrat Kumar Sahu had purchased a policy know as cash flow plan bearing policy No.50681071 and for the said policy he had paid a premium amount of Rs.22,000/- with having a premium paying term for 16 years and the policy maturity term is for 16 years, the mode of paying the policy premium is yearly as per the proposal form and policy document. Hence on the basis of the above criteria the policy document was issued on dated 12.01.2013 and dispatched on dated 15.01.2013 to the Deceased Life Assured (DLA).The said policy document which was dispatched to the DLA vide Speed Post POD No.EO583132725IN had been received by the DLA. Hence no complaint had ever yet received by us from the DLA that he had not received the policy document.The DLA expired on 20.05.2015 which we come to know only on 24.08.2015 vide written communication in this regard as made by Mrs. Pramila Sahu to us and which we too vide our written reply dated had expressed our deep condolence for the same and also for further processing the death claim had demanded certain necessary documents which are very formal in nature to be provided further in order to process the death claim at an earliest. The death claim was repudiated with reason that the policy was issued with risk commencement date 11.01.2013 and the premium was required to be paid yearly and same has been mentioned on the policy schedule and policy document. But due to non-payment of premium which dues on 11th January 2014 the policy got lapsed and as a result the death claim was repudiated. The complainant is not entitled to get any alleged amount of complainant or claim amount or interest in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence the O.P.No.1 & 2 prayed to dismiss the case with cost in the interest of natural justice.
4. On the date of final hearing of the consumer complaint, the learned counsels for both parties are present. We heard argument at length from both parties and perused the complaint petition, version, written argument, citation and documents placed on the case record. It reveals from the policy Bond that complainant’s son Subrat Kumar Sahu was the policy holder of Reliance Life Insurance Policy vide policy No. 50681071 dated 11.01.2013 and during life time the complainant’s son had deposited Rs.22,000/- as premium on 09.01.2013. It also reveals that the term of the policy was “16” years and the payment of premium was annually. But the complainant’s son expired on 20.05.2015 when the Reliance Life Insurance Policy was not in force. Further it also reveals that the complainant’s husband Kamaraj Sahu had intimated the Executive Director of Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd, Navi, Mumbai on 18.07.2015 which is after the death of the policy holder subrat Kumar Sahoo.
5. On foregoing discussion, it is clear evident that the O.Ps are not negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
In the result we dismissed the complainant’s case on contest against the O.Ps without cost.
The order is pronounced on this day of 4th May 2018 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of
