Kanak Building, 41, Chowringhee Road,

Kolkata-71, P.S. Park Street.                                                                               ---------- Opposite Parties

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.                                                        

                        Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri ,Member

                        Smt. Sharmi Basu ,Member

Order No.   38   Dated  18-02-2013.

                The case of the complainant in short is that complainant is the son of the Sole Executor to the estate of the Late Kapur Chand Gupta.

                Kapur Chand Gupta and members of his family had several banking accounts with the o.p. no.2. The said Kapur Chand Gupta had two savings accounts in his personal name or in the name of his Hindu Undivided Family or jointly with his sons. The particulars of the said accounts are as follows:

                                Name(s) of the account holder                                Account no(s).

                               Kapur Chand Gupta  and                               S/B. A/c No.5297055331   

                                  Shyam Sunder Gupta, Jt.

                                  Kapur Chand Gupta (HUF)                             S/B. A/c. No.5297053339

                Kapur Chand Gupta (hereinafter referred to as the said deceased) by virtue of his having held account with Citibank was also given an insurance coverage under the Citibank Suraksha Insurance Scheme. Under the said scheme the assured’s life was covered against personal accident to the extent of Rs.10 lakhs. The said coverage was issued by the o.p. no.1 in collaboration with the o.p. no.2.  

                Kapur Chand Gupta died of a road accident on  21.9.04. Copies of his death certificate and Accident / Injury  Police Information of Apolo Gleneagles Hospital are annexed.

                By a letter dt.15.10.04 written by the mother of complainant to o.p. no.1, a claim form was duly submitted with o.p. no.1. Thereafter, it came to her notice that the coverage was for Rs./1 lakh, which was wrong, and therefore, by two letters dt.29.7.05 and 30.8.05 written by complainant’s mother to the o.p. no.2 claim for the said sum was made. By a letter dt.8.9.05 written by the o.p. no.2 complainant was requested to contact the o.p. no.1 regarding any claim on the said coverage.

                At the request of o.p. no.1 a fresh claim form was submitted on 24.10.05 with o.p. no.1. By a letter dt.7.11.05 written by o.p. no.1 to the Investigator, Christopher Mansukhani, request was made to investigate a report.

                By a letter dt.15.2.06 written by o.p. no.1 to complainant’s mother, o.p. no.1 had accepted the claim for Rs.2 lakhs and requested for submission of legal documents.

                While the said correspondence was being made, it was detected by complainant for the first time that the actual coverage was for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs and therefore, a claim in that respect was made by a letter dt.4.10.06.

                By a letter dt.9.10.06, o.p. no.1 informed that the claim of Rs.2 lakhs was accepted but refused to admit the claim for Rs.10 lakhs.

                O.p. no.1 failed and neglected to make payment of the said sum of Rs.10 lakhs in spite of being intimated by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant sent a legal notice dt.16.10.06 stating the entire facts again to o.ps. and calling upon o.p. no.1 to make payment of Rs.10 lakhs. The said letter was duly received by o.p. no.1 on 3.11.06. The said letter was followed by reminders dt.12.12.06 and 15.1.07. But none of the said letters has yet been replied to by either of the o.ps. Hence the case was filed by complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.

                Both o.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Decision with reasons:-

                We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that complainant is a son and sole executor to the estate of Late Kapur Chand Gupta who had account with Citibank having insurance coverage under Citibank Surakshya Insurance Scheme and under the said scheme the assureds life was covered against personal accident to the extent of Rs.10 lakhs and the said coverage was issued by o.p. no.1 in collaboration with o.p. no.2 and Kapur Chand Gupta died of a road accident on 21.9.04 and by letter dt.15.10.04 written by mother of the complainant to o.p. no.1 a claim form was duly submitted with o.p. no.1 and it was subsequently noticed that coverage for Rs.1 lakh was wrong and at the request of o.ps. a fresh claim form was submitted on 24.10.05 with o.p. no.1. O.p. no.1 directed the investigator to investigate a report. It is admitted in the petition of complaint vide para 5 of the same that Kapur Chand Gupta died of a road accident on 21.9.04 and it is further evident from the record that a sum of Rs.2 lakhs was encashed by complainant and as per terms of the insurance policy death in air accident the amount was fixed for Rs.10 lakhs and any other cases the amount assured was Rs.2 lakhs. It is clear from the record that complainant already received in cash of Rs.2 lakhs o.ps. and complainant is stopped to claim further in terms and conditions of the policy in question.

                In view of the findings above and on perusal of the entire materials on record we find and hold that the complainant is not entitled to any further claim and the instant case is liable to be dismissed.

                Hence, ordered,

                That the case is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.

                Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.